This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-196 
entitled 'International Religious Freedom Act: State Department and 
Commission Are Implementing Responsibilities but Need to Improve 
Interaction' which was released on March 26, 2013. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

March 2013: 

International Religious Freedom Act: 

State Department and Commission Are Implementing Responsibilities but 
Need to Improve Interaction: 

GAO-13-196: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-196, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Congress passed the Act in 1998 to promote international religious 
freedom, among other purposes. The Act established within State the 
Office of International Religious Freedom, headed by an Ambassador-at-
Large. The Act also established USCIRF, with the Ambassador-at-Large 
as an ex-officio member. In addition, the Act outlined primary 
responsibilities for both State and USCIRF. 

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Reform and 
Reauthorization Act of 2011directed GAO to report on matters related 
to the U.S. promotion of international religious freedom. This report 
assesses (1) State’s implementation of its primary responsibilities 
established in the Act, (2) USCIRF’s implementation of its primary 
responsibilities established in the Act, (3) State’s and USCIRF’s 
interaction to promote religious freedom, and (4) NGOs’ views on U.S. 
efforts to promote religious freedom. 

GAO analyzed documents and interviewed officials from State, USCIRF, 
NGOs, and foreign governments. GAO conducted fieldwork in five 
countries, including CPCs, and surveyed 131 NGOs. The survey results 
reflect the views of survey respondents and cannot be generalized. 

What GAO Found: 

The Department of State (State) is implementing the primary 
responsibilities outlined in the International Religious Freedom Act 
of 1998 (the Act) by undertaking numerous actions to promote religious 
freedom, engaging with foreign officials, and annually publishing its 
International Religious Freedom Report. The Ambassador-at-Large and 
the Office of International Religious Freedom assist the Secretary of 
State with certain responsibilities outlined in the Act, including the 
designation of Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) and the 
development of training. 

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) is 
implementing its primary responsibilities outlined in the Act by 
conducting ongoing reviews of violations of religious freedom and 
issuing policy recommendations to the U.S. government. According to 
USCIRF officials, its primary responsibilities culminate in the 
release of its annual report. The report, required by the Act, 
discusses the 20 to 30 countries that USCIRF considers the worst 
offenders against religious freedom, and it presents policy 
recommendations to the U.S. government. USCIRF has at times also 
provided technical assistance or recommendations to foreign officials. 

Although the Act, as amended, directs State and USCIRF to cooperate, 
they have not defined how they should interact, which has at times 
created tensions with foreign government officials. For example, in 
its 2012 report, USCIRF recommended that the Secretary of State 
designate Turkey as a CPC. Because the Ambassador-at-Large was not 
regularly attending USCIRF meetings at the time, State officials 
learned of the commissioners’ intent shortly before USCIRF published 
its report. State officials explained that Turkey did not warrant CPC 
designation, as it had taken steps to improve religious freedom, but 
USCIRF proceeded with its recommendation. According to Turkish 
officials, USCIRF’s report contradicted State’s report and was 
therefore “null and void.” The Ambassador-at-Large told GAO that she 
had to resolve the resulting tensions with the Turkish government. 

Representatives of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) whom GAO 
surveyed and interviewed generally viewed overall U.S. government 
efforts to promote international religious freedom positively, while 
raising some concerns and suggesting several improvements. To better 
promote international religious freedom, some NGOs suggested greater 
inclusion of civil society and other nonstate actors and further 
empowerment of U.S. government entities. Likewise, NGOs familiar with 
State’s and USCIRF’s annual reports generally viewed them positively, 
although several raised concerns that both reports lacked objectivity. 
Finally, NGOs generally viewed State’s CPC designations favorably, 
although some doubted how useful the designations or recommended 
designations were to their work. NGOs from GAO’s five fieldwork 
countries provided similar opinions. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of State and the Chair of USCIRF 
jointly define how State and USCIRF should interact in their efforts 
to promote international religious freedom. State and USCIRF concurred 
with our recommendation. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-196]. For more 
information, contact Thomas Melito at (202) 512-9601 or 
melitot@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

State Is Implementing the Primary Responsibilities Established in the 
Act but Has Provided Inconsistent Reporting Policy and Guidance for 
the Ambassador: 

USCIRF Is Implementing Its Primary Responsibilities as Outlined in the 
Act and Has Undertaken Other Activities: 

State and USCIRF Have Not Defined How They Should Interact, Which Has 
at Times Created Foreign Policy Tensions: 

NGOs Generally Rated Overall U.S. Government Efforts Positively While 
Raising Some Concerns and Suggesting Several Improvements: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comparison of the U.S. Commission on International 
Religious Freedom with Other Select Congressional Commissions: 

Appendix III: Analysis of Department of State Cables Concerning 
International Religious Freedom: 

Appendix IV: Selected Results from Survey of Nongovernmental 
Organizations: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Commission on International 
Religious Freedom: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Policy Commissions, Boards and Advisory Bodies That Report to 
U.S. Congress: 

Table 2: Analysis of 178 Cables Sent by U.S. Embassies and Consulates, 
January 2009-October 2012: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Timeline Highlighting the Tenure of Each Ambassador-at-Large 
for International Religious Freedom: 

Figure 2: Timeline Depicting State's Designation and Removal of 
Countries and Regimes from the Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) 
List: 

Figure 3: Organizational Status of State's Six Current Ambassadors-at-
Large: 

Figure 4: NGOs' Ratings of the Overall Progress the U.S. Government 
Has Made With Respect to the Specified Activities: 

Figure 5: NGOs' Ratings of the Usefulness of State's Annual 
International Religious Freedom Report with Respect to the Specified 
Factors: 

Figure 6: NGOs' Ratings of State's Annual International Religious 
Freedom Report with Respect to the Specified Factors: 

Figure 7: NGOs' Ratings of the Usefulness of USCIRF's Annual Report on 
International Religious Freedom with Respect to the Specified Factors: 

Figure 8: NGOs' Ratings of USCIRF's Annual Report on International 
Religious Freedom with Respect to the Specified Factors: 

Figure 9: NGOs' Ratings of the Extent to Which State's CPC 
Designations Have Helped or Hindered the NGOs' International Religious 
Freedom-Related Work: 

Figure 10: NGOs' Ratings of the Extent to Which USCIRF's 
Recommendations for CPC Designations Have Helped or Hindered the NGOs' 
International Religious Freedom-Related Work: 

Figure 11: NGOs' Ratings of the Extent to Which They Agree or Disagree 
That the Countries Included in USCIRF's Annual Report Fully Represent 
the Worst Offenders of Religious Freedom: 

Abbreviations: 

CRS: Congressional Research Service: 

CPC: Countries of Particular Concern: 

DRL: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor: 

NGO: nongovernmental organization: 

UN: United Nations: 

USCIRF: U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

March 26, 2013: 

The Honorable Robert Menendez: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Bob Corker: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Foreign Relations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Edward R. Royce: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Foreign Affairs: 
House of Representatives: 

Because of concerns about increasing restrictions on religious rights 
around the world, Congress passed the International Religious Freedom 
Act of 1998 (the Act) to strengthen U.S. advocacy of individuals 
persecuted in foreign countries on account of religion.[Footnote 1] 
According to the Act, more than half of the world's population was 
living under governments that severely restricted or prohibited 
freedom of religion. In 2012, the Pew Research Center reported that 
approximately 75 percent of the world's population was living in 
countries with high or very high government restrictions on religion 
or with religious hostilities in society.[Footnote 2] The Act 
established an Office of International Religious Freedom (Office) 
within the Department of State (State), headed by an Ambassador-at-
Large, to promote international religious freedom. The Act also 
established the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom 
(USCIRF) to review the facts and circumstances of violations of 
religious freedom and recommend policy actions to the President, 
Secretary of State, and Congress. 

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reform 
and Reauthorization Act of 2011 (the Reauthorization Act) required us 
to report to the committees regarding several matters related to U.S. 
promotion of international religious freedom.[Footnote 3] The 
Reauthorization Act also included a specific requirement that we 
consult with nongovernmental organizations (NGO) in preparing the 
report. In addition, the Reauthorization Act required us to compare 
USCIRF with other commissions. To respond to the mandate, we have 
assessed (1) State's implementation of its primary responsibilities 
established in the Act; (2) USCIRF's implementation of its primary 
responsibilities established in the Act; (3) State's and USCIRF's 
interaction in their efforts to promote religious freedom; and (4) 
NGOs' views on U.S. efforts to promote international religious 
freedom. Appendix II presents our comparative analysis of USCIRF and 
other commissions. 

To address our objectives, we analyzed documents from State and 
USCIRF, including grant documents, cables, and annual reports. We also 
met with officials from State and USCIRF, including all three 
Ambassadors-at-Large--two former and one present--as well as all of 
the current and more than half of the former USCIRF commissioners. We 
also conducted fieldwork in Afghanistan, Indonesia, Turkey, 
Uzbekistan, and Vietnam, meeting with U.S. officials and 
representatives from relevant host-government agencies, NGOs, civil 
society, and religious communities. The five countries we selected for 
fieldwork met at least two of the following criteria: (1) State had 
funded an international religious freedom program in the country; (2) 
the country was on USCIRF's watch list; (3) USCIRF had recommended 
designating the country, or State has designated it, as a Country of 
Particular Concern (CPC); and (4) the Ambassador-at-Large or USCIRF 
had visited the country in the past 3 years. We also conducted a 
survey of 131 NGOs that we identified from a variety of sources as 
working on religious freedom issues. The results of the survey, which 
had a 64 percent response rate, reflect only the views of the 
respondents to our survey and cannot be generalized. See appendix I 
for a more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2012 to March 2013 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

The Act Established International Religious Freedom as a U.S. Foreign 
Policy Objective: 

In passing the Act, Congress noted that, at that time, more than half 
of the world's population lived under regimes that severely restricted 
or prohibited citizens from freely observing their religious beliefs. 
In addition, the Act describes government-sponsored and government-
tolerated violations to religious freedom that people faced, including 
slander campaigns; confiscation of property; denial of the right to 
assemble; and prohibitions against publishing, distributing, or 
possessing religious literature. According to the Act, religious 
believers in many countries also faced severe and violent forms of 
religious persecution, such as imprisonment, torture, beatings, mass 
resettlement, and death for their peaceful belief in, change of, or 
practice of their faith. 

In its findings on religious freedom, the Act refers to the U.S. 
Constitution and various principles of international law. The first 
amendment of the U.S. Constitution established the right to freely 
exercise religious beliefs, and according to the Act, "the right to 
freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the 
United States." In addition, the Act highlights principles of 
international law, such as those outlined in the United Nations (UN) 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant 
on Civil and Political Rights, which identify religious freedom as a 
universal human right.[Footnote 4] For example, according to the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to 
freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right includes 
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or 
in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his 
religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance." 

The Act states that it shall be the policy of the United States to 
condemn violations of religious freedom and to promote and assist 
other governments in the promotion of religious freedom. The Act 
describes several actions that the United States shall take in 
accordance with this policy objective, including the implementation of 
appropriate diplomatic, political, commercial, and other tools to 
promote respect for religious freedom by all governments and peoples. 
In July 2012, the Secretary of State reiterated the U.S. government's 
commitment to promote religious freedom and said that the 
administration had elevated religious freedom as a diplomatic 
priority.[Footnote 5] She also discussed her personal diplomatic 
outreach around the world concerning religious freedom and the 
appointment of the first envoy to the Organization of Islamic 
Cooperation. 

The Act Established Two Separate Entities and Outlined Their 
Responsibilities: 

The Act Established State's Office and Ambassador-at-Large for 
International Religious Freedom and Outlined State's Responsibilities: 

In accordance with the Act, State created the Office of International 
Religious Freedom (the Office) in 1999, headed by the Ambassador-at-
Large for International Religious Freedom (the Ambassador). State 
placed the Office within the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and 
Labor (DRL). Three individuals have served in this position (see 
figure 1).[Footnote 6] The position has been vacant for approximately 
4.5 of the 14 years since the Act's passage, primarily because of 
delays in the presidential nomination process.[Footnote 7] 

Figure 1: Timeline Highlighting the Tenure of Each Ambassador-at-Large 
for International Religious Freedom: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

October 1998: 
International Religious Freedom Act passes. 

May 1999-September 2000: 
Tenure of Robert Seiple. 

September 2000-May 2002: 
Vacant. 

May 2002-January 2009: 
Tenure of John Hanford. 

January 2009-May 2011: 
Vacant. 

May 2011-present: 
Tenure of Suzan Johnson Cook. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State information. 

[End of figure] 

The Act outlines four primary responsibilities for the Ambassador: (1) 
promote religious freedom, (2) serve as a principal adviser to the 
President and Secretary of State on religious freedom issues abroad, 
(3) represent the U.S. government diplomatically in matters relevant 
to religious freedom abroad, and (4) report on the status of 
international religious freedom annually. Although the Act directs 
that the Ambassador is the head of the Office, it does not explicitly 
outline responsibilities for the Office. State officials said that the 
primary responsibilities of the Office mirror those established for 
the Ambassador. 

The Act directs the President and the Secretary of State to take 
certain actions in response to violations of religious freedom. 
Specifically, the Act requires the President to designate and take 
action against CPCs. First, the Act requires the President to review 
the religious freedom situation in each country and designate 
countries as CPCs for "systematic, ongoing, egregious" violations of 
religious freedom. Secondly, the Act requires the President, with 
certain exceptions, to take a range of actions against designated 
countries, unless he waives this provision. The Act includes a list of 
actions the President may take against CPCs, including demarches, 
[Footnote 8] public condemnation, cancellation of a state visit, or 
withdrawal or limitation of development or security assistance. 
However, the President may submit a waiver of any CPC designation for 
certain reasons, including furtherance of the Act's goals or to 
support important U.S. national interests. The President has delegated 
these responsibilities and authorities to the Secretary of State. 
Finally, the Act outlines additional responsibilities for the 
Secretary of State, including the development of training for Foreign 
Service officers on religious freedom issues and the establishment of 
an international religious freedom website. 

The Act Established USCIRF and Outlined Its Responsibilities: 

The Act also established USCIRF, comprising nine volunteer members 
(commissioners); the President, the President pro tempore of the 
Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives each appoints 
three members.[Footnote 9] Moreover, the Act established that the 
Ambassador would serve ex officio as a nonvoting member of the 
commission. USCIRF has a professional staff and an executive director, 
in addition to the commissioners. 

The Act outlines two primary responsibilities for USCIRF: (1) review 
the facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom and (2) 
make policy recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and 
Congress with respect to these matters. In addition, the Act requires 
the commission to issue an annual report setting forth its 
recommendations for U.S. policy options based on its evaluation of the 
facts and circumstances presented in State's annual report and of 
information from other sources where appropriate. The Act authorized 
USCIRF to hold hearings, and a 1999 amendment to the Act authorized 
USCIRF to conduct travel and to secure information from any federal 
agency as necessary to carry out its duties. Since fiscal year 2000, 
Congress has appropriated more than $42 million for USCIRF's 
activities. 

The Act established USCIRF as a 4-year commission, and the 1999 
amendment to the Act established that USCIRF would terminate on May 
14, 2003.[Footnote 10] The Act established a 2-year term of office for 
each commissioner and also allowed for the reappointment of each 
commissioner to a second term. In 2002, Congress amended the Act again 
to extend USCIRF's authority to September 30, 2011, but did not 
establish term limits for commissioners.[Footnote 11] In 2011, 
Congress extended the termination date to September 30, 2014, and 
implemented some additional changes, including placing a limit of two 
2-year terms on commissioners.[Footnote 12] As a result of the term 
limits, 7 of the 9 commissioners at that time were required to leave 
the commission. Since 1999, 33 commissioners have served on USCIRF; 9 
have served for 5 or more years, and 3 have served for 10 or more 
years. 

State Is Implementing the Primary Responsibilities Established in the 
Act but Has Provided stent Reporting Policy and Guidance for the 
Ambassador: 

State, including the Ambassador and the Office, is implementing the 
primary responsibilities outlined in the Act. The Ambassador, with the 
support of the Office, promotes religious freedom, advises the 
President and Secretary of State, represents the United States 
diplomatically on international religious freedom issues, and annually 
publishes the International Religious Freedom Report. Other entities 
in State, such as other offices and embassies, also take actions to 
implement some of the responsibilities outlined in the Act. In 
addition, the Ambassador and the Office support the Secretary of State 
in implementing some of the responsibilities that the Act establishes 
for the Secretary. However, the Ambassadors-at-Large for International 
Religious Freedom have a lower organizational status than State's 
other Ambassadors-at-Large, and State has provided inconsistent 
reporting policy and guidance to the Ambassadors-at-Large for 
International Religious Freedom. 

State Is Implementing the Primary Responsibilities Established in the 
Act: 

Ambassador and Office Are Implementing Primary Responsibilities 
Independently and Through Efforts of Other State Entities: 

The Ambassador and the Office are implementing the primary 
responsibilities that the Act established--namely, promoting 
international religious freedom, advising the President and Secretary 
of State, diplomatically representing the United States with regard to 
religious freedom issues, and publishing an annual report on the 
status of religious freedom worldwide. The Ambassador carries out 
these responsibilities both independently and with the assistance of 
other State entities, including U.S. embassies abroad. 

Ambassador, Office, and Other State Entities Promote Religious Freedom: 

The Ambassador, the Office, and other State entities have undertaken 
actions, in accordance with both the Act and U.S. foreign policy 
objectives, to promote religious freedom. Examples of these activities 
include the following: 

* Hosting and participating in events. The Ambassador and the Office 
host, and participate in, events that promote religious freedom and 
tolerance through dialogue. For example, in October 2012, the Office 
and the U.S. Institute of Peace sponsored a public panel discussion 
titled "Religion, Violence, and Coexistence," at which the Ambassador 
spoke. The event's discussion focused on (1) civil society's role in 
preventing and addressing statements of religious bias and (2) ways in 
which civil society and the U.S. government can collaborate to advance 
peaceful religious coexistence, freedom, and security. 

* Working directly with foreign governments. State officials said that 
the Ambassador and the Office work directly with foreign government 
officials to promote religious freedom by discussing concerns and 
assisting with the development of concrete steps a government might 
take to improve religious freedom or with legislative changes. For 
example, one Ambassador said that negotiations led to a formal public 
statement in which the government of Saudi Arabia clarified policies 
it had adopted and would pursue in order to improve religious freedom 
for minority faiths and eliminate religiously intolerant material from 
textbooks and other literature used in Saudi Arabia or exported abroad. 

* Elevating religious freedom issues within State. According to Office 
staff, the Office and the Ambassador continually work to elevate 
religious freedom issues within State. A State official explained that 
Office staff conduct numerous briefings for mid-level and executive 
department officials concerning religious freedom in various 
countries, as the situations warrant. In addition, another State 
official said that Office staff prepare talking points and briefing 
memorandums for senior State officials to use during meetings with 
foreign-government officials, although they told us they do not always 
know whether the officials use the talking points. According to a 
State official, the Ambassador also disseminates religious freedom-
related information throughout DRL and across State. 

* Developing religious freedom-related grants. According to Office 
staff, since 2007, the Office has developed 27 religious freedom-
related programs with $16.6 million in grants from DRL's Human Rights 
and Democracy Fund.[Footnote 13] These programs include global 
initiatives and support the promotion of religious freedom across the 
six regions of the world,[Footnote 14] with a focus on changing 
societal perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. For example, one 
program supported in-country capacity building to establish teams to 
track, catalogue, and respond to religious tensions within the 
country. Our review of 7 of the 27 program grants found that, in 
general, the grantees reported that they are meeting their grant 
objectives, such as capacity building and public awareness. See 
appendix I for detailed information concerning our grant analysis. 

* Undertaking a variety of activities at U.S. embassies. U.S. 
embassies have undertaken a variety of activities to promote religious 
freedom, as indicated in our review of 178 cables that U.S. embassies 
sent from January 2009 to October 2012 addressing religious freedom in 
approximately 60 countries (see appendix III for more detailed results 
of our analysis).[Footnote 15] In addition, embassy officials in the 
five countries where we conducted fieldwork described various embassy 
activities to promote religious freedom. For example, some officials 
told us that their embassies organized events to promote religious 
tolerance and dialogue, such as speaker panels; hosted religious 
holiday dinners and roundtable discussions; and met with foreign-
government, NGO, and religious officials to discuss religious freedom. 
Embassy officials in two countries we visited stated that they do not 
receive funding specifically for religious freedom activities; rather, 
the embassy uses funds from its operational budget account when 
hosting events to promote religious freedom. 

* Developing other religious freedom-related programs. Other State 
offices have also undertaken activities to promote religious freedom. 
For example, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs funds and 
administers the International Visitor Leadership Program, which 
connects current and emerging foreign leaders with their U.S. 
counterparts through short-term professional-exchange programs. 
According to State officials, the program has supported the exchange 
of religious and civil society leaders. In addition, State's Special 
Representative to Muslim Communities and former Special Envoy to 
Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism launched a campaign, "2012 Hours 
Against Hate," to promote respect across lines of culture, religion, 
tradition, class, and gender.[Footnote 16] The initiative involves 
sending requests, via social media, to young people asking them to 
pledge 1 hour or more of their time to stop hate by helping someone 
who does not look, live, or pray like them. 

Ambassador Advises the President and Secretary of State: 

According to the Act, the Ambassador "shall be a principal adviser to 
the President and the Secretary of State regarding matters affecting 
religious freedom abroad." The former Ambassadors and State officials 
told us that the three Ambassadors-at-Large for International 
Religious Freedom have served as a principal adviser to the President 
primarily by communicating with National Security Staff. For example, 
the Ambassadors and Office staff said that the Ambassadors 
communicated with National Security Staff to discuss religious 
freedom, including potential CPC designations. According to State 
officials, the current Ambassador also participates in the National 
Security Council's Interagency Policy Committee meetings when religion 
is a topic of focus. 

The three Ambassadors reported having advised the Secretary of State 
in a number of ways. For example, the first Ambassador said that, in 
addition to meeting with the Secretary of State in person, he provided 
her with notes from his trips to update her on religious freedom in 
the countries he visited. In addition, the Secretary of State 
occasionally asked him for specific advice on interacting with various 
religious communities. Similarly, the second Ambassador said he met 
occasionally with the Secretary of State to discuss religious freedom 
issues and at times participated in the Secretary's meetings with 
foreign officials or religious leaders. The second and third 
Ambassadors told us that they also provided the Secretary of State 
with talking points and trip summaries. In addition, the current 
Ambassador said that she has served as an adviser to the Secretary of 
State through her role as a co-chair of the Religion and Foreign 
Policy Working Group, which was part of the former Secretary's 
Strategic Dialogue with Civil Society.[Footnote 17] 

Ambassador and Other State Officials Represent the United States 
Diplomatically Regarding Religious Freedom: 

The Act authorizes the Ambassador to represent the United States in 
matters relevant to religious freedom abroad, and the Ambassador--as 
well as other State officials--engages with foreign officials with 
regard to international religious freedom. The three Ambassadors have 
represented the U.S. government in multilateral forums and met with 
foreign-government officials and others to promote religious freedom. 
For example, the first Ambassador said that he attended the annual UN 
Human Rights Council meetings in Geneva, and all three Ambassadors 
said they attended UN General Assembly meetings that discussed 
religious freedom. According to the second Ambassador, the purpose of 
the Ambassador at these meetings was to influence the content of 
resolutions and to seek to coordinate policy goals with other U.S. 
officials at the UN. In September 2011, the Secretary of State named 
the current Ambassador as the lead coordinator for the United States 
on the implementation of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, 
which the UN Human Rights Council passed in March 2011.[Footnote 18] 
In December 2011, the Ambassador hosted the first meeting of experts 
to promote implementation of Resolution 16/18, which 26 governments 
and 4 international organizations attended.[Footnote 19] In addition, 
according to State officials, all three Ambassadors have traveled 
abroad to meet with officials of foreign governments, religious 
organizations, and NGOs to discuss religious freedom on behalf of 
State. 

Furthermore, other State officials discuss religious freedom with 
foreign-government and NGO officials and with civil-society and 
religious leaders. For example, when visiting Turkey in 2011, the 
Secretary of State urged the Turkish government to reopen the Halki 
Seminary in Istanbul as a symbol of Turkey's commitment to religious 
freedom.[Footnote 20] In addition, many of the 178 cables State 
provided to us described activities that the Ambassador or other 
embassy officials undertook to engage with foreign-government and NGO 
officials and with civil-society and religious leaders regarding 
religious freedom. 

State Annually Publishes the International Religious Freedom Report: 

State has published the International Religious Freedom Report 
annually since 1999, in accordance with the Act.[Footnote 21] The 
report, which involves the engagement of embassies worldwide, 
describes the status of religious freedom in every country; identifies 
government policies that violate religious freedom and the persecution 
of groups, religious denominations, and individuals; and discusses 
U.S. actions and policies to promote religious freedom in each 
country. According to a 2010 report by State's Office of Inspector 
General,[Footnote 22] the International Religious Freedom Report is 
among the most resource intensive of the 310 congressionally mandated 
reports for which State is responsible, because it requires 
significant additional resources in Washington, D.C., and in the 
field. For example, while other mandated reports are based largely on 
regular embassy reporting, embassies must obtain additional 
information to write the International Religious Freedom Report. 
[Footnote 23] State officials told us that the Office works with 
Foreign Service officers worldwide to write the report[Footnote 24] 
and that drafting and publication of the report involves a number of 
review phases. According to Foreign Service officers in our five 
fieldwork countries, they undertake a number of activities--such as 
monitoring court cases related to religious freedom and maintaining 
relationships with religious communities, religious leaders, civil 
society, NGOs, and foreign-government officials throughout the year--
to gather information for the report. After they complete the initial 
drafts, numerous offices and bureaus in Washington review and revise 
the draft country reports through an iterative process. Before 
finalizing the report, embassies and various State offices approve 
each country report and relevant sections. 

Ambassador and Office Support the Secretary of State in Implementing 
Other Responsibilities Established in the Act: 

The Act establishes several responsibilities that the Secretary of 
State conducts with the assistance of the Ambassador and the Office. 
These include designating CPCs,[Footnote 25] developing religious 
freedom-related training for Foreign Service officers, including 
chiefs of mission, and establishing an international religious freedom 
website. 

State Has Designated Countries of Particular Concern, and the U.S. 
Government Has Taken Some Corresponding Actions: 

In response to the Act, the Secretary of State has reviewed the status 
of religious freedom in each foreign country and designated those 
countries whose government has engaged in, or tolerated, particularly 
severe violations of religious freedom as CPCs. State officials said 
that the Secretary of State tasks the Office with the development of 
CPC recommendations. State does not designate CPCs every year, and 
according to State officials, the Act does not require the agency to 
do so. A State official said that the Office develops the 
recommendations based on its assessment of many factors, including (1) 
whether the government is restricting rights or is complicit in 
allowing certain groups to be targeted and (2) whether issues are 
systematic, egregious, and ongoing. According to State officials, the 
Office reviews the International Religious Freedom Report and consults 
with the Ambassador, DRL management, and others within and outside 
State when developing recommendations for the CPC list. For example, 
the Office meets with USCIRF officials and considers their 
recommendations. The Office also discusses the CPC recommendations 
with National Security Staff. On the basis of the Office's 
recommendations, the Ambassador and DRL management determine the final 
list of countries they will recommend for CPC designation to the 
Secretary of State. 

The Secretary of State periodically designates CPCs after reviewing 
the recommendations that the Ambassador and DRL management provide. 
Since 1999, Secretaries of State have designated CPCs at least nine 
times, designating 10 countries as CPCs: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, 
Iraq, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Vietnam, and Uzbekistan (see 
figure 2).[Footnote 26] In addition, the Secretary of State designated 
two regimes as particularly severe violators of religious freedom--the 
Miloševi regime in Serbia and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. To 
date, Iraq, Vietnam, the Miloševi regime, and the Taliban regime are 
the only entities that State has removed from the CPC list. [Footnote 
27] After State designated Vietnam as a CPC in 2004, the Ambassador 
negotiated an action plan with the Vietnamese government whereby the 
government, among other things, would pass a law to reduce religious 
persecution. On the basis of subsequent actions by the Vietnamese 
government, State removed Vietnam from the list in 2006. Similarly, 
the current Ambassador and her staff recently developed an action plan 
to help the government of another designated country identify actions 
that, if taken, could support the removal of the country from the CPC 
list. 

Figure 2: Timeline Depicting State's Designation and Removal of 
Countries and Regimes from the Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) 
List: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

State designation of countries and regimes as CPCs: 

October 1999: Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Miloševic and Taliban 
regimes. 

September 2000: Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Miloševic and Taliban 
regimes. 

State removed countries/regimes from CPC list: 

January 2001: Miloševiv regime. 

State designation of countries and regimes as CPCs: 

October 2001: Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, and North Korea, 
Taliban regime. 

State removed countries/regimes from CPC list: 

March 2003: Taliban regime. 

State designation of countries and regimes as CPCs: 

March 2003: Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Sudan. 

State removed countries/regimes from CPC list: 

June 2004: Iraq. 

State designation of countries and regimes as CPCs: 

September 2004: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi 
Arabia, Sudan, and Vietnam. 

November 2005: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, 
Sudan, and Vietnam. 

November 2006: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, 
Sudan, and Uzbekistan. 

January 2009: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, 
Sudan, and Uzbekistan. 

August 2011: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, 
Sudan, and Uzbekistan. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State information. 

Note: The Secretary of State designated the Miloševic regime in Serbia 
and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan as particularly severe violators 
of religious freedom with Country of Particular Concern status. 

[End of figure] 

The Act requires the President to take action against CPCs following 
their designation, although certain exceptions exist and the President 
may waive application of these actions.[Footnote 28] The President 
delegated these responsibilities to the Secretary of State. Although 
the Secretary imposed sanctions specific to religious freedom in 2005 
on Eritrea, in other cases the Secretary of State has adopted existing 
sanctions in response to the CPC designation. The Secretary has waived 
sanctions for both Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, consistent with the 
authorities of the Act. 

State Developed Religious Freedom Training: 

The Ambassador, the Office, and DRL have supported State's Foreign 
Service Institute in the development of training related to religious 
freedom. The Act required the Secretary of State, with the assistance 
of the Ambassador, to establish instruction on the internationally 
recognized right to freedom of religion and the various manifestations 
of violations of religious freedom, as part of the standard training 
for Foreign Service officers, including chiefs of mission, provided 
after January 1, 1999. State has taken steps to implement this 
requirement. For example, in June 1999, the Foreign Service Institute 
added religious freedom to the Political/Economic Tradecraft course--a 
3-week course that is mandatory for political and economic officers--
in a 90-minute session covering human rights. This session may include 
topics such as religious freedom, trafficking in persons, gender 
issues, and labor issues. In addition, during a required 6-week 
mandatory orientation course, new Foreign Service officers attend a 1-
hour session on human rights that includes information about 
international religious freedom. Finally, State requires chiefs of 
mission to take a 2-week ambassadorial seminar, which includes a 45-
minute session on global issues, including human rights. 

In addition, the Foreign Service Institute, the Office, and DRL 
developed an optional, 3-day, religious freedom-specific course titled 
"Religion and Foreign Policy," which they piloted in June 2011. The 
Foreign Service Institute expanded the course to 4 days in January 
2012. State has now offered the "Religion and Foreign Policy" course 
three times. Thirty-four of the 60 students who have taken the course 
are Foreign Service officers. In addition, the Foreign Service 
Institute is working with DRL and the Office to develop an optional 
distance-learning course on drafting State's annual Human Rights 
Report and, possibly, the International Religious Freedom Report. 

Furthermore, before and after the Act was passed, the Foreign Service 
Institute provided relevant training in other courses in which 
religious freedom is one of many components. For example, starting in 
August 1993, the Foreign Service Institute added a short segment on 
religious freedom to the human rights module of its 2-day Global 
Issues course. In 2003, the Foreign Service Institute combined the 1-
day Human Rights Workshop with the Global Issues course. The revised 
course, titled "Global Issues and Human Rights Workshop," contained a 
1-hour and 45-minute case-study segment related to religious freedom. 
[Footnote 29] 

State Established an International Religious Freedom Website: 

The Act directs the Secretary of State, with the assistance of the 
Ambassador, to establish and maintain a website containing relevant 
religious freedom documents to facilitate NGOs' and the public's 
access to international documents on the protection of religious 
freedom. State has established a website for the Office that includes 
documents that may be useful for NGOs and the public seeking 
information about religious freedom. For example, the website provides 
a link to the annual International Religious Freedom Reports and links 
to relevant legislation, UN websites, some international agreements 
and declarations, NGOs' websites, and international organizations' 
websites. The website also includes a section for press releases and 
remarks made by some State officials regarding religious freedom, 
including press releases and remarks from the first and current 
Ambassadors' tenures. 

Ambassador's Organizational Status Is Lower Than Other Ambassadors'-at-
Large, and State Has Provided Inconsistent Reporting Policy and 
Guidance: 

The Ambassador's organizational status in State is lower than that of 
other Ambassadors-at-Large. The Act established the position but does 
not designate the Ambassador's organizational status. However, the 
other five current Ambassadors-at-Large within State report to higher-
level officials than does the Ambassador. Two Ambassadors-at-Large 
report directly to the Secretary of State, and three report to an 
Under Secretary. In contrast, in 1999 State placed the Ambassador in a 
bureau and under the direction of a lower-level official, the 
Assistant Secretary for DRL. At that time, State had two other 
Ambassadors-at-Large, both of whom reported directly to the Secretary 
of State. According to the State Inspector General's 2005 report, the 
Executive Secretariat had a long-standing goal of avoiding growth in 
the number of officials reporting to the Secretary.[Footnote 30] A 
senior State official also told us that the location of an office is 
at the discretion of the Secretary of State. However, according to 
State's organizational structure guidelines,[Footnote 31] an 
Ambassador-at-Large is ranked higher than an Assistant Secretary. 
Moreover, as figure 3 shows, the current Ambassador is the only 
Ambassador-at-Large who reports to an Assistant Secretary. 

Figure 3: Organizational Status of State's Six Current Ambassadors-at-
Large: 

[Refer to PDF for image: organizational chart] 

Top level: 
Secretary of State; 
Deputy Secretary of State(2). 

Second level, reporting to Secretary of State: 
Under Secretary for Political Affairs; 
Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment; 
Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security; 
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs; 
Under Secretary for Management; 
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights: 
* Bureau of Counterterrorism Ambassador-at-Large; 
* Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons Ambassador-at-
Large; 
* Office of Global Criminal Justice Ambassador-at-Large; 
* Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Assistant Secretary; 
- Office of International Religious Freedom Ambassador-at-Large. 

Third level, reporting to Secretary of State: 
Office of Global Women's Issues Ambassador-at-Large; 
Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Ambassador-at-Large. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State information. 

[End of figure] 

State has also applied and provided inconsistent reporting policy and 
guidance to the Ambassadors. For example, State officials told us that 
each of the three Ambassadors received different reporting guidance 
that did not necessarily reflect the organizational chart. The first 
Ambassador said that State placed him in DRL but that no one at State 
explained whom he was to report to or provided related documentation. 
He said that he reported directly to the Secretary of State. The 
second Ambassador said that he also did not receive documents or 
briefings concerning his reporting structure and that he reported to 
the Assistant Secretary. Furthermore, according to State officials, 
DRL management told the current Ambassador that, although she 
officially reports to the Assistant Secretary, she would have to 
report primarily to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary or 
another Deputy Assistant Secretary. 

In addition, State's Office of Inspector General found in 2003 that 
the then-Ambassador's organizational status--which mirrors the current 
Ambassador's organizational status--confused reporting relationships. 
[Footnote 32] At that time, the Inspector General concluded that the 
arrangement in which the Ambassador reports to and through the 
Assistant Secretary for DRL appeared at odds with State's own 
organizational guidelines. The Inspector General recommended that DRL, 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Global Affairs,[Footnote 33] and 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Management reexamine the role 
and organizational status of the Ambassador. In a 2005 follow-up 
review, the Inspector General reported that, although the three groups 
had reviewed the role and organizational status of the Ambassador 
following the 2003 report, they had decided that the Ambassador and 
the Office would continue to reside in DRL.[Footnote 34] The Inspector 
General also reported that DRL had said that a number of coordination 
and communications issues had been successfully addressed, citing the 
2004 decision of the Deputy Secretary of State to allow the second 
Ambassador to communicate directly with the Secretary on policy issues 
through memoranda. In its 2005 follow-up review, the Inspector General 
closed its 2003 recommendation. However, the Deputy Secretary's 
decision was reversed sometime before the current Ambassador took 
office. It is not clear when or who within State reversed the 
decision; however, according to State officials, the current 
Ambassador has been required to send memorandums jointly with the 
Assistant Secretary of DRL since the beginning of her tenure. In 
addition, although the Inspector General closed the recommendation 
from its 2003 review, it noted that DRL and the Office agreed that 
difficulties continued to arise from the Ambassador's organizational 
status and that at some point in the future, the structure should be 
fundamentally addressed and resolved.[Footnote 35] However, State has 
not fully addressed the concerns that the Inspector General raised in 
2003 and 2005 and continues to require the current Ambassador to 
report to and through the Assistant Secretary of DRL. 

USCIRF Is Implementing Its Primary Responsibilities as Outlined in the 
Act and Has Undertaken Other Activities: 

USCIRF is implementing its primary responsibilities as outlined in the 
Act by conducting an ongoing review of violations of religious freedom 
throughout the world and issuing policy recommendations to the 
President, the Secretary of State, and Congress. According to USCIRF 
officials, the culmination of these activities is the release of its 
own annual report on international religious freedom, which the Act 
also requires.[Footnote 36] Based on USCIRF's ongoing reviews, the 
report discusses the 20 to 30 countries that USCIRF considers the 
worst offenders of religious freedom and presents policy 
recommendations to the U.S. government. In addition to performing 
these activities, USCIRF has at times provided technical assistance or 
recommendations to foreign officials through meetings, letters, press 
releases, or editorials. 

USCIRF Conducts Ongoing Review of the Circumstances of Religious 
Freedom Violations: 

In accordance with the Act, USCIRF conducts an ongoing review of 
violations of religious freedom throughout the world by undertaking 
independent research and reviewing State's annual International 
Religious Freedom Report. USCIRF staff members are responsible for 
specific regions of the world or thematic areas and information 
collection from a range of sources, including religious communities, 
NGOs, and U.S. and foreign-government officials as well as from 
documentation and media reports on those countries. USCIRF officials 
stated that they interact with a network of NGOs through various 
international religious freedom working groups, roundtables, seminars, 
and conferences as well as through State contacts. USCIRF officials 
also travel abroad to observe conditions and meet with U.S. embassy 
and foreign-government officials and NGO officials and members of 
religious communities. For example, according to USCIRF staff, at 
their request State officials in Turkey organized a roundtable of NGOs 
to brief USCIRF commissioners on religious freedom issues during their 
2011 visit to the country. Similarly, in the United States, USCIRF 
officials meet with members of religious communities, including 
diaspora communities, NGOs, human rights activists, dissidents, 
victims of religious freedom violations, academics, experts, and U.S. 
and foreign-government officials. USCIRF staff engage with their 
counterparts in State's Office of International Religious Freedom and 
the relevant officers in State's regional bureaus to understand the 
conditions of religious freedom in various countries and U.S. 
government efforts to promote religious freedom in those countries. 
According to USCIRF staff, they also review and independently verify 
the characterization of facts and the status of religious freedom in 
State's annual report. 

USCIRF Provides Policy Recommendations: 

In accordance with the Act, USCIRF provides policy recommendations to 
the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress through various 
means. According to USCIRF officials, the primary mechanism for 
providing recommendations is its annual report. Specifically, the 
chapter for each country in the USCIRF report contains a list of 
recommendations for U.S. government action with regard to religious 
freedom in that country. For example, in the 2010 report's chapter on 
Eritrea, USCIRF made 20 recommendations, including that the U.S. 
government should continue to designate Eritrea as a CPC, should 
impose targeted sanctions against individuals and institutions 
identified as responsible for, or complicit in, serious human rights 
abuses, and should prohibit any foreign company's raising capital or 
listing its securities in the United States while engaged in 
developing Eritrea's mineral resources.[Footnote 37] USCIRF also 
provides recommendations to the U.S. government through 
correspondence, congressional testimony, press releases, editorials, 
and policy briefs. In addition, USCIRF officials stated that they 
provide recommendations during meetings with State and other executive 
branch officials and their staff and members of Congress and their 
staff. For example, in a July 2012 letter to the Secretary of State, 
USCIRF recommended that the U.S. government work with the new Egyptian 
government to (1) ensure that a portion of U.S. military assistance is 
used to help Egyptian police assess security needs for protecting 
religious minority communities and (2) undertake reforms to promote 
religious freedom. USCIRF staff first draft these documents and 
recommendations, which the commissioners then review and approve with 
a majority vote. 

USCIRF's Annual Report Focuses on Countries That USCIRF Considers the 
Worst Offenders: 

According to USCIRF officials, the culmination of USCIRF's primary 
responsibilities is the release of its annual report. The report, 
based on USCIRF's ongoing reviews, discusses the 20 to 30 countries 
that USCIRF considers the worst offenders of religious freedom. The 
report also presents policy recommendations to the U.S. government 
with regard to religious freedom in each of those countries. USCIRF 
officials stated that the annual report covers a smaller number of 
countries than the State report because the USCIRF report focuses only 
on countries in which religious freedom violations occur and because 
USCIRF does not have the resources needed to report on the status of 
religious freedom in every country. According to USCIRF officials, 
staff first provide recommendations to the commissioners regarding the 
countries that should be included in the report, on the basis of (1) 
the staff's ongoing monitoring of religious freedom and (2) trends or 
changes in countries that USCIRF observed in its prior-year report. 
Commissioners then discuss and vote on which countries to include, on 
the basis of the staff recommendations and the commissioners' 
interests, knowledge, and deliberations. The report contains three 
sections that, respectively, 

* highlight the countries that USCIRF recommends that the Secretary of 
State designate as CPCs for particularly severe violations of 
religious freedom; 

* focus on the countries USCIRF has placed on a watch list for serious 
violations of religious freedom that do not meet the CPC threshold but 
require very close attention; and: 

* discuss other countries and issues of concern. 

The CPC and watch list sections of the report are divided by country 
and includes a summary of religious freedom conditions in that 
country, U.S. government policies and actions taken in the country, 
and policy recommendations for the U.S. government. 

USCIRF officials stated that the policy directors, the executive 
director, and commissioners review the report for accuracy and tone. 
USCIRF staff said that they verify information in the report with 
State officials, NGOs, and religious communities. Commissioners 
deliberate and vote on which countries they want to categorize as 
CPCs, place on the watch list, or identify as additional countries of 
concern. After commissioners make a determination for each country, 
staff members prepare the country chapters and circulate them to the 
commissioners for review. Commissioners' dissenting opinions are 
included in the report when voting is not unanimous. For example, in 
USCIRF's 2012 annual report, a commissioner dissented from the CPC 
recommendation for Iraq, stating that USCIRF's report, among other 
things, did "not establish either that the government [of Iraq] 
engaged itself in severe violations or that it tolerated them." 
Further, the commissioner stated that USCIRF's report "only 
establishes the existence of such violations and the inability of the 
government to prevent them always (or prevent them often)."[Footnote 
38] 

USCIRF Has Provided Technical Assistance and Recommendations to 
Foreign Officials: 

In addition to carrying out the primary responsibilities laid out in 
the Act, USCIRF at times has provided technical assistance and 
recommendations to foreign officials through meetings, letters, press 
releases, and editorials. Examples of these activities include the 
following. 

* Meetings with foreign officials. During meetings abroad, USCIRF has 
provided assistance to foreign governments and at times has called 
directly for policy changes. For instance, according to USCIRF's 2011 
annual report, USCIRF worked with members of the Indonesian House of 
Representatives and civil society groups to introduce measures to 
strengthen criminal code provisions regarding attacks on religious 
gatherings and to amend laws governing the building of religious 
venues. Further, during its 2011 visit to Saudi Arabia, USCIRF said 
that it called on high-level Saudi officials to release long-term 
religious prisoner Hadi Al-Mutif from prison and raised concerns about 
six young Shi'a Muslim prisoners.[Footnote 39] 

* Writing letters to foreign officials. USCIRF provided policy 
recommendations to foreign officials through letters. In June 2010, 
USCIRF wrote a letter to the Ambassador of the Republic of Turkey 
about reports of Turkish government interference in the election of 
the Armenian Orthodox Patriarch, requesting additional information and 
urging the removal of governmental constraints on such internal church 
matters. In June 2011, USCIRF wrote to the Head of Mission of the 
Government of South Sudan, providing a review of the draft of the 
Government of South Sudan's interim constitution and offering 
suggestions to strengthen the freedom of religion or belief provisions. 

* Writing press releases. According to USCIRF officials, it issues 
press releases in response to current events and at times has used 
press releases to urge foreign officials to take actions. For example, 
in a May 2011 press release, USCIRF provided recommendations to the 
government of Egypt. USCIRF recommended, among other things, that the 
government establish a special unit in the Office of the Public 
Prosecutor that would be dedicated to investigating acts of violence 
against Egyptian citizens on the basis of religion or belief, 
particularly Coptic Orthodox Christians; vigorously prosecuting, and 
bringing to justice, perpetrators of these acts; and ensuring 
compensation for victims. In addition, in a July 2012 press release, 
USCIRF urged China's government to lift its restrictions on all 
peaceful religious activities in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous 
Region, especially during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. 

* Writing editorials. USCIRF commissioners have written editorials 
that also urge foreign officials to take actions related to religious 
freedom. For example in a November 2011 editorial, USCIRF 
commissioners stated that Pakistan's government should replace current 
public school textbooks with ones that exclude messages of 
intolerance, hatred, or violence based on religious or other 
differences. Also, in a January 2012 editorial, USCIRF commissioners 
wrote that "Nigeria's political establishment, including President 
Goodluck Jonathan and other leaders, should muster the will and 
courage not only to curb the strife but to bring all perpetrators to 
justice."[Footnote 40] 

State and USCIRF Have Not Defined How They Should Interact, Which Has 
at Times Created Foreign Policy Tensions: 

Although the Act, as amended, directs State and USCIRF to cooperate, 
they have not defined how they should interact. As a result, their 
level of interaction has fluctuated over the years, although it has 
recently increased after a period of little interaction. In addition, 
State and USCIRF have at times conveyed inconsistent information to 
foreign-government officials on U.S. foreign policy, creating tensions 
that State has had to mitigate. 

Act Directs State Office and USCIRF to Cooperate, but Agencies Have 
Not Defined How They Should Interact: 

The Act created two separate entities that are to cooperate and work 
on behalf of international religious freedom, yet the Act does not 
prescribe how State and USCIRF should interact and coordinate their 
efforts. The Act establishes the Ambassador as an ex-officio member of 
USCIRF and states that the Ambassador is to consider USCIRF's advice 
in making policy recommendations. In addition, the Act states that the 
Secretary of State is to consider USCIRF's recommendations in 
preparing the annual report on international religious freedom. A 1999 
amendment to the Act directs USCIRF to cooperate with State, stating 
that "[t]he commission shall seek to effectively and freely cooperate 
with all entities engaged in the promotion of religious freedom 
abroad, governmental and nongovernmental, in the performance of the 
commission's duties," specifically listing State among those entities. 
[Footnote 41] At the same time, the Act originally directed that the 
commission would terminate four years after the initial appointment of 
all of the commissioners. 

Although both USCIRF and State are to promote international religious 
freedom, USCIRF is a commission focused on a single issue, while State 
is a U.S. department that must consider other foreign policy issues. 
[Footnote 42] Both State and USCIRF officials said that this 
arrangement sometimes sets up a "good cop/bad cop" relationship. For 
example, USCIRF may raise a particular country's religious freedom 
issues that State wants to address but that may be too sensitive for 
State to broach, given other bilateral considerations. State officials 
also said that USCIRF's criticisms of a country's religious freedom 
situation can create a line of communication for State if, for 
instance, that country's officials then decide they want to work with 
State to determine how they can stay off of the official CPC list. The 
Act also requires USCIRF to conduct an "annual and ongoing review of 
the facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom 
presented [in State's reports]" as well as make policy recommendations 
to the Secretary of State, among others. At the same time, the 
Ambassador, as an ex-officio member of USCIRF, sits on a commission 
that gives recommendations to the Ambassador's agency. 

All of the Ambassadors and many of the commissioners we spoke with 
said that they have never jointly defined how they should interact. 
Former and current commissioners expressed various ideas about the ex-
officio role of the Ambassador; for example, commissioners stated that 
the Ambassador should participate in every USCIRF meeting and share 
information, that the Ambassador's role was irrelevant to USCIRF's 
work, and that the Ambassador should not participate in USCIRF 
discussions. Some former commissioners said that without the 
Ambassador's regular participation, USCIRF had difficulty getting 
access to State policymakers to discuss religious freedom. One former 
commissioner said that such access would have enriched USCIRF's 
recommendations. At the same time, two of the current commissioners 
said that USCIRF could improve its efforts to understand State's 
diplomatic efforts with regard to religious freedom. 

The Ambassadors also provided varying interpretations of the ex-
officio role. They said, for example, that the Ambassador should be an 
active participant at USCIRF meetings during every discussion, short 
of voting; that the Ambassador's role was to explain State activities 
and actions to USCIRF and that USCIRF, conversely, should include the 
Ambassador on e-mails and other forms of internal communication; and 
that the Ambassador has no clear role on USCIRF but should try to 
attend as many USCIRF commissioner meetings as possible. One of the 
Ambassadors said that commissioners did not always include him in e-
mail conversations and exchanges, resulting in a loss of 
communication. For example, he said that at times commissioners 
withheld documents and e-mail communications from the Ambassador's 
office or only shared drafts of press releases at the last minute, 
thereby inhibiting the Ambassador's ability to convey State's 
perspective or correct factual errors. 

State and USCIRF's Interaction Has Fluctuated: 

The level of interaction between the Ambassador and USCIRF has varied 
greatly over the years. According to the first Ambassador and USCIRF 
officials, the first Ambassador attended USCIRF's monthly meetings, 
participated in their monthly teleconferences, and traveled overseas 
with the USCIRF chair on one occasion. However, that Ambassador said 
he had discussed his ex-officio role with USCIRF only once, during a 
debate, when a commissioner told him he should not be participating. 
State and USCIRF officials told us that the second Ambassador began 
his tenure by regularly attending the monthly USCIRF meetings, but he 
attended less frequently over time. Former State officials and USCIRF 
officials said that both entities considerably decreased their 
official communication, in part because of disagreement over how they 
should work together. 

As the level of interaction between the Ambassador and commissioners 
has varied over the years, so has the level of interaction between 
their staffs. According to State and USCIRF officials, when the 
Ambassador and commissioners had little official interaction, their 
staffs had little interaction as well, although they did try to 
maintain some informal collaboration. For example, according to one 
former Office staff member, during a period of little official 
interaction and even discouragement of staff interaction, he and the 
USCIRF executive director began meeting for lunch to maintain a line 
of communication. In addition, a former commissioner noted that when 
the Ambassador's position was vacant for 2 ˝ years, USCIRF's contact 
with State was primarily at the staff level. 

More recently, according to the current Ambassador and USCIRF 
officials, they have increased their interaction from its previously 
low level, with both a new Ambassador and a largely new commission in 
place. For example, from 2009 to 2011, USCIRF and State officials, 
including officials from the Office of International Religious 
Freedom, collaborated on efforts that led to the passage of UN 
Resolution 16/18 to combat religious intolerance. The Ambassador now 
participates in the lunchtime portions of discussions during some of 
the monthly meetings, although she generally does not participate in 
USCIRF's monthly teleconferences. The Ambassador and the current 
USCIRF chair also have been joint presenters at various forums, both 
in the United States and abroad. In October 2012, for example, they 
gave a joint speech on religious freedom at Europe's largest annual 
human rights and democracy conference, sponsored by the Organization 
for Security and Co-operation in Europe. In addition, staff from the 
Office and USCIRF staff stated that they share information with each 
other more now than in the past. State and USCIRF officials told us 
that this information sharing recently helped USCIRF determine whether 
to elevate a country from its watch list to its CPC recommendation 
list. State and USCIRF officials discussed the issues as well as 
actions that State would take with the country's officials. Their 
interaction resulted in USCIRF's keeping the country on its watch list 
rather moving it to the CPC list. 

All three Ambassadors and a few commissioners told us that the limited 
interaction between State and USCIRF, arising from a lack of a 
definition of how they should interact, had sometimes created tensions 
with foreign-government officials. For example, USCIRF recommended in 
its 2012 annual report that the Secretary of State designate Turkey as 
a CPC. The Ambassador was not regularly attending USCIRF meetings at 
the time, and State officials learned of USCIRF's intent to recommend 
Turkey only shortly before USCIRF published its report in March 2012. 
State officials tried to engage the commissioners and explain State's 
position against such a recommendation, but USCIRF proceeded to 
recommend Turkey for CPC designation. Turkish officials from the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a press release that USCIRF's 
report directly contradicted State's annual report on religious 
freedom, and called the USCIRF report "null and void." State officials 
told us that they had to resolve the resulting tensions with the 
Turkish government. In June 2012, a senior State official briefed 
USCIRF regarding State's position on Turkey, namely, that because the 
Turkish government had taken actions to improve religious freedom in 
the country, Turkey did not deserve CPC designation. 

State and USCIRF's Limited Interaction Created Foreign Policy Tensions 
That State Had to Mitigate: 

In addition, according to State officials, because the Ambassador and 
commissioners have not defined how they should interact, they have at 
times communicated conflicting information to foreign governments on 
behalf of the United States. For example, 5 days after USCIRF 
recommended Turkey for CPC designation in March 2012, the President 
publicly congratulated the Turkish prime minister on efforts he had 
made to protect religious minorities in Turkey. In addition, one 
Ambassador said that in meetings with foreign-government officials, he 
sometimes not only had to explain the function of USCIRF, but--because 
some statements by commissioners were not in line with U.S. foreign 
policy--he also had to clarify that USCIRF did not speak for him, even 
as an ex-officio member of the commission, or for the U.S. government. 

All three Ambassadors cited instances when USCIRF's approach with 
foreign-government officials created bilateral tensions. For example, 
the first Ambassador recounted helping to bring a delegation of high-
level Laotian officials to the United States to tour, meet with 
government officials and religious communities, and view examples of 
religious freedom.[Footnote 43] According to the Ambassador, when the 
delegation returned, they freed 34 of 37 people imprisoned for their 
religious beliefs. The Ambassador told us that as a result, he had 
judged that Laos was making progress in instituting some real changes 
in the area of religious freedom; however, USCIRF recommended Laos for 
CPC designation shortly thereafter. The Ambassador said that USCIRF's 
recommendation almost ruined State's diplomatic efforts to address 
religious freedom in Laos. In another example, in 2005, the second 
Ambassador negotiated an action plan with the Vietnamese government 
including actions that, if taken by the government, could support its 
case for removal from the CPC list. According to State officials, 
Vietnam took the necessary steps and the Secretary of State removed 
the country's CPC designation in 2006. However, when USCIRF 
commissioners visited Vietnam later that year, according to State and 
Vietnamese officials, they offended the Vietnamese officials by their 
conduct in high-level meetings. State officials told us that this was 
damaging to some of the progress made with Vietnamese officials and 
necessitated efforts to repair the U.S. relationship with Vietnam. 

Some State, USCIRF, and NGO officials we spoke with raised other 
concerns about the role USCIRF has played with respect to U.S. foreign 
policy. According to a former commissioner, during her tenure on 
USCIRF, commissioners became bolder in speaking out in letters or 
during meetings with foreign officials, and it was unclear to her 
whether these activities were within the bounds of the Act. Also, 
USCIRF officials told us that the commission has at times applied an 
expansive interpretation of the Act, questioning whether the 
responsibilities in the Act were a "floor or a ceiling." They also 
said that, under USCIRF's mandate to provide recommendations to the 
U.S. government on religious freedom, USCIRF has the obligation to 
help foreign governments take actions to address U.S. critiques. Some 
former commissioners said that foreign governments have at times 
requested advice or assistance from USCIRF and that, in general, 
USCIRF urged or made recommendations to foreign officials when it 
thought the recommendations were consistent with U.S. foreign policy. 
At the same time, some USCIRF officials noted that without active 
participation from the Ambassador, they risk not fully understanding 
U.S. foreign policy in a particular situation or country. 

NGOs Generally Rated Overall U.S. Government Efforts Positively While 
Raising Some Concerns and Suggesting Several Improvements: 

The NGOs--religious organizations and other civil society groups--that 
we surveyed, as well as NGO representatives whom we interviewed, 
generally rated overall U.S. government, State, and USCIRF efforts to 
promote international religious freedom positively. At the same time, 
they raised some concerns and suggested several improvements, such as 
including more civil society and other nonstate actors and making the 
promotion of international religious freedom a higher foreign-policy 
priority. Likewise, NGOs that were familiar with State's and USCIRF's 
annual reports generally viewed both reports positively, although 
several raised concerns about a lack of objectivity in each report. 
Finally, NGOs generally viewed CPC designations positively, although 
some doubted the helpfulness of the designations to their own 
religious freedom work. 

NGOs Generally Rated Overall U.S. Government Progress Positively While 
Suggesting Improvements: 

Overall Progress: 

The NGOs that we surveyed and NGO representatives whom we interviewed 
indicated that they generally rated overall U.S. progress in promoting 
international religious freedom positively, although most provided 
specific suggestions to improve U.S. government efforts.[Footnote 44] 
Among the 84 NGOs that responded to our survey, 63 NGOs (75 percent) 
said that the U.S. government had made at least some progress in 
promoting religious freedom overall.[Footnote 45] The responding NGOs 
also generally said that the U.S. government had made progress in 
promoting specific international religious freedom activities, such as 
engaging in dialogue with foreign governments to effect changes in 
policy (59 of 83 NGOs, or 71 percent) and engaging in dialogue with 
NGOs and civil society groups regarding international religious 
freedom (65 of 84 NGOs, or 77 percent). For additional survey results, 
see appendix IV.[Footnote 46] 

One of the NGO survey responses stated, "I believe that it is very 
helpful that the U.S. government emphasizes religious freedom as a key 
foreign policy issue. This keeps the issue on the international 
agenda." NGO representatives whom we spoke with on our field visits 
echoed these views, and a few told us that, in their opinion, the 
United States is the only country actively encouraging other 
governments to improve religious freedom. For example, some NGO 
representatives in four of our five fieldwork countries told us that 
they communicated with the U.S. embassy regularly, both on their own 
initiative and in response to information requests from the embassy's 
human rights officer. Representatives of other NGOs, in Turkey and 
Vietnam, said that the U.S. embassies have invited them to interfaith 
discussions hosted by the embassies and that they were free to contact 
the embassies to raise specific issues regarding religious freedom 
situations. However, a representative from a religious group in 
Afghanistan told us that although he had met with U.S. officials on 
multiple occasions over the past few years and had described to them 
the various challenges facing his religious community, he had not seen 
any action taken. 

Concerns and Suggested Improvements: 

While the NGO responses to our survey generally expressed positive 
views of U.S. government efforts to promote international religious 
freedom, they also raised some concerns and identified several areas 
where they believed the U.S. government could improve its efforts. 

In response to our survey's request for elaboration on ratings of 
progress made, the NGOs' most common concern was that international 
religious freedom was not as high a priority for the U.S. government 
as it should be and that this hindered overall efforts to promote 
international religious freedom (9 of the 27 NGOs that elaborated on 
their responses expressed this view). For example, one NGO stated, 
"Too often, religious freedom appears to be an afterthought." Other 
NGOs commented that State has not made international religious freedom 
a priority and that the Office is not valued within State's structure. 
Other NGOs expressed in the survey the perception that the U.S. 
government has had limited success in promoting international 
religious freedom in general, including through the use of the CPC 
designation, or in obtaining the release of prisoners of conscience. 
When asked to list their organization's top suggestions to improve 
U.S. government efforts to promote international religious freedom, 27 
of the 69 NGOs (39 percent) that responded to the question suggested 
greater inclusion of, and consultation with, civil society and 
nonstate actors, both in the United States and abroad. One NGO 
responding to the survey pointed to State's Religious Freedom and 
Foreign Policy Working Group as a positive development toward 
addressing this concern.[Footnote 47] 

Other frequently suggested improvements included making international 
religious freedom a higher priority in U.S. foreign policy and 
empowering State--and to a lesser extent, USCIRF--with greater 
resources and authority to promote international religious freedom. 
For example, an NGO responding to our survey suggested that the U.S. 
government "include the promotion of international religious freedom 
as a greater aspect of formulating foreign policy toward a particular 
country or region." Another NGO responded that "funding should be 
substantially increased for both the Office and USCIRF. They have a 
tiny amount of resources with which to investigate an issue affecting 
billions of individuals." 

NGOs Generally Rated Both State's and USCIRF's Annual Reports 
Positively but Raised Some Concerns about Lack of Objectivity: 

State's Annual Report: 

Most of the NGOs that responded to our survey questions about State's 
annual report on international religious freedom rated the report 
positively. The NGOs responding to the survey and the NGO 
representatives we interviewed in Indonesia, Turkey, Vietnam, and 
Uzbekistan were largely familiar with the State report.[Footnote 48] 
Of the 84 NGOs that responded to our survey, 70 (83 percent) stated 
that they were familiar with the report. Representatives from several 
NGOs and religious organizations whom we met with in Indonesia, 
Turkey, Vietnam, and Uzbekistan told us that State's annual report 
raises awareness of religious freedom issues in their countries and 
around the world. For example, one NGO representative told us that the 
report is a useful tool for disseminating information about the 
situation in her country and helps raise awareness of the issues to 
the government of her country and to the world. A leader of a 
religious organization in another country explained that the 
publication of the State report proves to his country's government 
that the U.S. government is aware of the restrictions placed on his 
religious community. He said that this knowledge has influenced his 
government's decision making in some cases, such as in the early 
release of a prisoner, jailed for conscientious objection to military 
service, whom State listed in its report. 

Of the 70 NGOs that were familiar with State's annual report, 54 NGOs 
(77 percent) said that State's annual report was at least somewhat 
useful in affecting religious freedom in a country, and 58 NGOs (83 
percent) said that State's annual report was at least somewhat useful 
in impacting U.S. policy on religious freedom.[Footnote 49] In 
addition, 66 of the 70 NGOs (94 percent) said that the report was 
useful for their overall efforts. One NGO that deals with a specific 
religious group said, "It was very helpful to have a clear, official 
document from the State Department that named and condemned…
atrocities." Another NGO said that the report was "accurate, timely, 
objective, and extremely useful." This perception may be related to 
the level of familiarity that various groups had with State and 
USCIRF. While the NGOs we surveyed had a high degree of familiarity 
with both State and USCIRF (70 of 84 NGOs, or 83 percent, were 
familiar with State, and 64 of 84 NGOs, or 76 percent, were familiar 
with USCIRF), groups we met with during our field visits tended to 
identify State as the U.S. actor most responsible for promoting 
international religious freedom. 

Additionally, of the 70 NGOs that were familiar with State's annual 
report, 61 NGOs (87 percent) said that the report was credible overall 
and 58 NGOs (83 percent) said that it was accurate.[Footnote 50] 
Several NGO representatives whom we spoke with overseas said that they 
could vouch only for information they provided to the embassy and were 
hesitant to judge the reports' degree of accuracy and 
comprehensiveness. 

However, 16 of the 70 NGOs familiar with the State report (23 percent) 
rated its objectivity as only fair or poor. In addition, 11 of 28 NGOs 
that elaborated on their responses to questions about State's report 
raised concerns about a perceived lack of objectivity in State's 
report. One NGO noted, "There is a perception of the report, by the 
international civil society, American NGOs, and State Department 
personnel that the conclusions of the report are politically 
predetermined." NGOs had a similar concern when responding about the 
usefulness of State's report. Five of the 11 survey respondents who 
elaborated on their response said that they perceive State's report to 
be influenced by U.S. policy. One NGO wrote, "The State Department 
tends to undervalue religious freedom issues in countries where there 
are significant U.S. economic or security interests." 

USCIRF's Annual Report: 

Most of the NGOs that responded to our survey expressed positive views 
of USCIRF's annual report on international religious freedom. Of the 
84 respondents, 64 NGOs (76 percent) were familiar with the USCIRF 
report. Fifty-one of the 64 NGOs familiar with the report (80 percent) 
said that it was at least somewhat useful in affecting religious 
freedom in a country and 49 of the 64 NGOs (77 percent) said that it 
was at least somewhat useful in affecting U.S. policy.[Footnote 51] 
Many of the NGO representatives whom we interviewed in Afghanistan, 
Indonesia, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam were not aware of USCIRF's report--
for example, none of the 9 representatives of NGOs, religious or in 
civil society, whom we interviewed in Uzbekistan were familiar with 
the report. 

Of the 64 respondents that were familiar with USCIRF's annual report, 
59 NGOs (92 percent) said the report was credible and 57 NGOs (89 
percent) said it was accurate.[Footnote 52] One NGO commented further 
that "the IRF report is a credible source of information which 
accurately highlights challenges in countries." Another NGO commented, 
"USCIRF made an effort to talk directly to victims of religious 
persecution and to verify the facts they presented." 

Nine of the 64 respondents that were familiar with the USCIRF report 
rated its objectivity as "fair" or "poor," and 5 of 14 NGOs that 
elaborated on their responses about USCIRF's annual report reported a 
perceived lack of objectivity of the report. For example, one NGO 
commented, "The USCIRF report can feel more overtly steered by U.S. 
diplomatic and political interests." Another stated that the report 
has, "in some cases, been more representative of individual concerns 
of the appointed commissioners, rather than a comprehensive and 
evenhanded analysis of IRF [international religious freedom] concerns 
and abuses worldwide." An additional 4 of the 14 NGOs commented that 
USCIRF's report was not always comprehensive, omitting some countries 
and focusing on CPC countries, and said that it reflected individual 
commissioners' concerns. This observation was further echoed when NGOs 
were asked to provide suggestions for improving the USCIRF report. 
Other groups echoed one NGO's suggestion of "more global coverage and 
better documentation of incidents reported." 

NGOs Had Generally Positive Views about CPC Designations, but Some 
Questioned the Designations' Usefulness to Their Work: 

State's CPC Designations: 

NGOs expressed somewhat mixed opinions about whether the Secretary of 
State's CPC designations helped or hindered their work. Of the 84 
respondents to our survey, 38 NGOs (45 percent) said that the CPC 
designation helped their work, 26 NGOs (31 percent) said that it 
neither helped nor hindered, and 6 NGOs (7 percent) said that it 
hindered their work. The remaining 14 NGOs (17 percent) had no 
opinion. For example, one NGO explained, "Other nations take notice of 
U.S. government religious freedom concerns raised in the report but 
since there are few negative consequences even if given a CPC 
designation, those nations may be inclined to ignore U.S. human rights 
criticisms." Other government-sanctioned groups, such as those we 
spoke with in Uzbekistan, said the CPC designation of their country 
was not justified and did not affect them or their communities. In 
contrast, several NGO representatives whom we interviewed in Vietnam 
said that the CPC designation of the country from 2004 through 2006 
put pressure on the Vietnamese government to institute religious 
freedom reforms.[Footnote 53] Further, some said that the removal of 
Vietnam from the CPC list had slowed progress and had lessened 
pressure on the Vietnamese government to protect religious freedom. 
However, some also said that redesignating Vietnam as a CPC was 
unwarranted, given the progress that the country has made. 

USCIRF's Commentary on CPC Designations and Watch List: 

Similarly, NGOs expressed somewhat mixed opinions about whether 
USCIRF's CPC or watch list recommendations helped or hindered their 
work. Of the 84 respondents to our survey, 40 NGOs (48 percent) said 
that USCIRF's CPC recommendations had helped their work, 21 NGOs (25 
percent) said that the designations neither helped nor hindered, and 5 
NGOs (6 percent) said the designations hindered their work. The 
remaining 16 NGOs (19 percent) expressed no opinion.[Footnote 54] The 
NGOs' perceptions of the watch list that USCIRF compiles, in addition 
to providing its CPC recommendations, were similar to respondents' 
perceptions of both the State and USCIRF CPC lists. Of the 84 survey 
respondents, 37 NGOs (44 percent) said that USCIRF's watch list 
recommendations helped their work, 26 NGOs (31 percent) said that the 
designations neither helped nor hindered, and 5 NGOs (6 percent) said 
that the designations hindered their work. The remaining 15 NGOs (18 
percent) expressed no opinion.[Footnote 55] 

Fifty-two of the 84 NGOs that responded to our survey (62 percent) 
said that they agreed with USCIRF's recommendations to designate 25 to 
30 countries as CPCs or for its watch list.[Footnote 56] Ten of the 84 
NGOs (12 percent) neither agreed nor disagreed, 5 of the NGOs (6 
percent) disagreed, and 17 of the NGOs (20 percent) had no opinion. An 
additional 26 NGOs responded with specific suggestions for improving 
the USCIRF annual report--for example, taking a more comprehensive 
approach to reporting globally, soliciting additional input from other 
sources, and providing constructive examples of how countries can 
improve religious freedom. 

Conclusions: 

Both State and USCIRF have implemented their primary responsibilities 
outlined in the Act, and each has undertaken a variety of activities 
in response to increased restrictions on religious freedom around the 
world. In general, NGOs that we surveyed and NGO representatives whom 
we interviewed expressed positive perceptions of these activities, 
including State's and USCIRF's annual reports on international 
religious freedom. However, the lack of a definition regarding how the 
two entities are to interact has created foreign policy tensions that 
State has had to mitigate. These tensions have resulted in part from 
the fact that the Ambassadors and USCIRF have not defined the 
Ambassador's role as an ex-officio member of the commission. Guidance 
that would clarify how State and USCIRF are to cooperate would 
strengthen each entity's unique contribution to promoting 
international religious freedom. It would also institutionalize their 
information sharing and help ensure that the U.S. government presents 
a more consistent foreign policy message with respect to religious 
freedom. 

To enhance U.S. efforts to promote international religious freedom, we 
recommend that the Secretary of State and the Chair of USCIRF jointly 
define how State and USCIRF should interact in their efforts to 
promote international religious freedom, paying particular attention 
to defining the ex-officio role of the Ambassador-at-Large for 
International Religious Freedom as a nonvoting USCIRF member. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the State and USCIRF for 
comment. We received written comments from both entities, which are 
reproduced in full in appendices V and VI, respectively. State and 
USCIRF agreed with our recommendation and both expressed willingness 
to take action. We also received technical comments from each, which 
we incorporated throughout our report as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees, the Secretary of State, and the Chair of USCIRF. In 
addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-9601 or MelitoT@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix VII. 

Signed by: 

Thomas Melito: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reform 
and Reauthorization Act of 2011 mandated that we report to the Senate 
Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs on several matters related to U.S. promotion of international 
religious freedom. In addition, the mandate included a specific 
requirement that we consult with nongovernmental organizations (NGO) 
in preparing the report. In response to the mandate, this report 
assesses (1) the Department of State's (State) implementation of its 
primary responsibilities established in the International Religious 
Freedom Act of 1998 (the Act); (2) the U.S. Commission on 
International Religious Freedom's (USCIRF) implementation of its 
primary responsibilities established in the Act; (3) State's and 
USCIRF's interaction in their efforts to promote religious freedom; 
and (4) NGOs' views on U.S. efforts to promote international religious 
freedom. The mandate also directed us to compare USCIRF with other 
advisory commissions; for this analysis, we summarized a previous 
Congressional Research Service report (see app. II). 

To address our four objectives, we conducted fieldwork in five 
countries--Afghanistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. We 
selected these countries on the basis of their meeting at least two of 
the following criteria: (1) State had funded international religious 
freedom programs in the country; (2) the country was on USCIRF's watch 
list; (3) USCIRF had recommended the country for designation as a 
Country of Particular Concern (CPC) or State had designated it as a 
CPC; and (4) the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious 
Freedom (the Ambassador) or USCIRF had visited the country in the 
previous 3 years. Specifically: 

* Afghanistan. State had funded international religious freedom 
programs in the country. In addition, USCIRF had included Afghanistan 
on its watch list for several years and visited the country in 2010. 

* Indonesia. State had funded international religious freedom programs 
in the country, and USCIRF had included Indonesia on its watch list 
for several years.[Footnote 57] 

* Turkey. USCIRF recommended Turkey for CPC designation for the first 
time in 2012, but according to State officials, State did not agree 
with the recommendation. The Ambassador and USCIRF had both traveled 
to Turkey in the previous 3 years. 

* Uzbekistan. State had designated Uzbekistan as a CPC for several 
years and had waived sanctions against it. The Ambassador had traveled 
to Uzbekistan in the last year. 

* Vietnam. State had funded an international religious freedom program 
in the country. State removed Vietnam from the CPC list in 2006, 
making it one of only two countries that State had ever removed from 
the CPC list. The Ambassador had traveled there in the last year. 

While in each country, we interviewed State embassy officials, 
including the U.S. Ambassador to the country and the International 
Religious Freedom officer. We also interviewed representatives from 
host governments, NGOs, and religious communities. In two countries we 
visited, we also met with officials from third-country embassies. 

To address our first objective, we reviewed the provisions of the Act 
and identified the primary responsibilities that the Act established 
for State. We also analyzed State documents, including cables, grant 
materials, State's annual International Religious Freedom Report, the 
2003 State Inspector General's Report of Inspection: Bureau for 
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and the Inspector General's 2005 
Compliance Follow-up Review on the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights 
and Labor. We also met with State officials, including staff from the 
Office of International Religious Freedom, all three Ambassadors-at-
Large for International Religious Freedom--two former and one present--
and senior level officials such as an Assistant Secretary and two 
Under Secretaries in Washington, D.C. We requested that State provide 
us with cables to demonstrate the type of activities it undertook from 
January 2009 through October 2012 to (1) promote or improve 
international religious freedom and (2) document international 
religious freedom issues. State provided us with 183 unclassified 
cables, five of which were duplicates. State also identified more than 
100 additional classified cables that pertained to CPCs, but State did 
not provide those cables to us in time for us to analyze them for this 
report. This analysis does not provide a full list of all religious 
freedom-related activities that State conducted worldwide during this 
time period, because (1) not all activities are reported in cables; 
(2) State may not have located all the relevant cables sent during 
this time period; and (3) we did not receive the classified cables in 
time for us to analyze them for this report. See appendix III for a 
summary of our analysis of the cables. 

In response to our request that State identify all of its grants 
related to international religious freedom, State provided us with a 
list of 27 grants that it had grouped either globally or by region of 
the world. For our analysis, we selected seven grants that generally 
represented the largest award amount in each region of the world and 
that included both ongoing and completed grants as well as a grant in 
one of our fieldwork countries. We also selected a seventh grant that 
was not country specific from the global programs category. For each 
of these seven grants, we reviewed the grant's goals and objectives, 
how the grant implementer measured progress toward those goals, and 
whether the implementer reported meeting the goals. 

To address our second objective, we reviewed the provisions of the 
Act, identified the primary responsibilities that the Act established 
for USCIRF, and analyzed USCIRF documents such as its annual report on 
international religious freedom, letters to U.S. government officials, 
editorials, and press releases. To determine how USCIRF implemented 
its primary responsibilities, we also interviewed USCIRF staff and 20 
of the 33 commissioners appointed to USCIRF, including all of the 
current commissioners. In addition, we also interviewed all three 
Ambassadors-at-Large--two former and one present--who serve as ex-
officio members of USCIRF. We conducted these interviews in or near 
Washington, D.C. 

To address our third objective, we met with officials from State and 
USCIRF, including all three Ambassadors-at-Large--two former and one 
present--and all of the current and approximately half of the former 
USCIRF commissioners. We also interviewed State and foreign-government 
officials in our fieldwork countries, as well as NGO officials both in 
the United States and abroad who have worked closely with both 
entities. In addition, we analyzed State cables as well as documents 
from USCIRF, including press releases, editorials, and their annual 
reports. 

To address our fourth objective, we conducted a survey of NGOs that we 
identified from five sources: (1) State's Office of International 
Religious Freedom's list of 30 most-consulted NGOs; (2) USCIRF's list 
of NGOs that the commission has worked, or been in contact, with; (3) 
members of the Secretary of State's Religion and Foreign Policy 
Working Group; (4) a list of NGOs participating in the International 
Religious Freedom Roundtable in Washington, D.C.; and (5) the Pew 
Online Directory of Religious Advocacy Groups, which the Pew Research 
Center's Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life developed. These 
sources produced a list of 317 unique NGOs. To determine the universe 
of NGOs from our five sources, we contacted each NGO and identified 
137 that had conducted work related to international religious 
freedom. We developed a web-based survey instrument in August 2012 and 
pretested it with 6 NGOs. The survey contained closed-and open-ended 
questions in four general areas: (1) demographics, (2) State's 
international religious freedom activities, (3) USCIRF's international 
religious freedom activities, and (4) general U.S. policy on 
international religious freedom. We sent the web-based survey to all 
137 NGOs via e-mail in September 2012. However, we removed six NGOs 
from our universe of 137, resulting in a universe of 131 NGOs, after 5 
NGOs responded that they did not conduct work related to religious 
freedom and we determined that one NGO was a duplicate. We received 84 
responses to our survey, or a 64 percent response rate. The results of 
the survey reflect the views of only the respondents to our survey and 
cannot be generalized either to the universe of 131 organizations or 
to any other organizations that are involved in these types of issues. 
See appendix IV for selected survey results. 

We administered the web-based survey from September 5 to October 18, 
2012. We sent each NGO an e-mail invitation to complete the survey on 
a GAO web server using a unique username and password. During the data 
collection period, we sent reminder e-mails and made phone calls to 
nonresponding NGOs. Because this was not a sample survey, it had no 
sampling errors; however, the practical difficulties of conducting any 
survey may introduce nonsampling errors, such as difficulties in 
interpreting a particular question, which can introduce unwanted 
variability in the survey results. We took steps to minimize 
nonsampling errors by pretesting the questionnaire with six NGOs 
representing different religious traditions or no religious 
affiliation. We conducted pretests to ensure that the questions were 
clear and unbiased, that the data and information were readily 
obtainable, and that the questionnaire did not place an undue burden 
on respondents. Additionally, a senior GAO methodologist independently 
reviewed a draft of the questionnaire prior to its administration. We 
made appropriate revisions to the content and format of the 
questionnaire after the pretests. All data analysis of survey results 
were independently verified for accuracy. 

In addition, we conducted a limited content analysis of open-ended 
responses to five survey questions. We developed initial categories 
for selected questions with open-ended responses, to characterize the 
general theme of the response. For responses to questions asking about 
the credibility of each report, we developed the following categories: 
Timeliness (described as the frequency and/or timing of the reports); 
Effectiveness; Specific; CPC; Lack of Objectivity (initially coded as 
"Bias"); Lack of Input; Composition/Format; Contrast; and Lack of 
Resources. For questions elaborating on the perception of the 
usefulness of each report, we developed the following categories: 
Specific; Policy (regarding the formulation/motivation of U.S. 
international religious freedom policy); CPC; Contrast; Limited 
(meaning the State or USCIRF report has a circumscribed impact); and 
Not Applicable. For the question asking NGOs to provide their 
suggestions on ways to improve U.S. promotion of international 
religious freedom, we developed the following categories: Inclusion; 
Measurement; Enforcement; Empowerment; Awareness; Prioritize; 
Specific; and Not Applicable. One analyst coded the responses with at 
least one category, with an optional second category. After the 
initial coding, a second analyst independently assigned categories to 
the same responses. The analysts then reconciled the two sets of 
coding, assigning a final determination to each response. A 
methodologist then reviewed the categories, making language changes as 
needed. These results were then tabulated. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2012 to March 2013 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comparison of the U.S. Commission on International 
Religious Freedom with Other Select Congressional Commissions: 

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reform 
and Reauthorization Act of 2011 directed us to, among other things, 
conduct a comparative analysis of the structure of the U.S. Commission 
on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in relation to other U.S. 
advisory commissions.[Footnote 58] To conduct this analysis, we relied 
on the Congressional Research Service's (CRS) compilation of 
Congressional Advisory Boards and Commissions to which Congress has a 
direct appointing role.[Footnote 59] 

In 2013, CRS reported on the 85 permanent and temporary congressional 
commissions whose members Congress participates in appointing. 
[Footnote 60] CRS defines a congressional commission as a multi-member 
independent entity that (1) is established by Congress, (2) exists 
temporarily, (3) serves in an advisory capacity, (4) is appointed in 
part or whole by members of Congress, and (5) reports to Congress. CRS 
grouped the current 85 congressional commissions in four categories: 
(1) policy advisory bodies, (2) commemorative advisory bodies, (3) 
operational advisory bodies, and (4) diplomatic advisory bodies. Given 
that CRS categorized USCIRF as a policy advisory body, we focused our 
comparative analysis on the 26 advisory bodies that CRS classified as 
policy advisory bodies. 

Our analysis shows that USCIRF does not appear to be unique among 
policy advisory bodies in duration limit, membership numbers, or 
appointment terms. USCIRF comprises 10 members known as commissioners, 
with 2-year appointments and a limit of two terms.[Footnote 61] 
Following are characteristics of the 26 policy advisory bodies: 

* Seven of the advisory bodies had a statutory duration limit, while 
19 did not. 

* Membership ranged from 4 to 37 members. 

* Appointments ranged from 1 to 6 years for advisory bodies that had 
delineated term limits; five of the advisory bodies had term limits 
for the life of the body; two of the advisory bodies had term limits 
for the duration of the Congress from which they were appointed; and 
one advisory body had a statutorily unclear term of appointment. 

Table 1: Policy Commissions, Boards and Advisory Bodies That Report to 
U.S. Congress: 

Entity name: Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance; 

Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 11; 
Term of appointment: 4 years. 

Entity name: Citizen's Coinage Advisory Committee; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 11; 
Term of appointment: 4 years. 

Entity name: Commission on Long-Term Care; 
Duration: 6 months, 30 days; 
Number of members: 15; 
Term of appointment: Duration of commission. 

Entity name: Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki 
Commission); 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 21; 
Term of appointment: Congressional appointees serve for duration of the 
Congress that made the appointments; no specified term for Department 
of State, Department of Defense, or Department of Commerce appointees. 

Entity name: Commission to Reduce Child Abuse and Neglect; 
Duration: 2 years, 30 days; 
Number of members: 12; 
Term of appointment: Duration of commission. 

Entity name: Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's 
Republic of China; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 23; 
Term of appointment: Not specified. 

Entity name: Congressional Advisers for Trade Policy and Negotiations; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 10; 
Term of appointment: Duration of the Congress that made the member 
appointment. 

Entity name: Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: Varies; minimum of 18 members; 
Term of appointment: 1, 2, or 3 years. 

Entity name: Denali Commission; 
Duration: No statutory end date; Number of members: 7; 
Term of appointment: Duration of commission, except federal co-
chairperson who is appointed for 4 years. 

Entity name: Election Assistance Commission; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 4; 
Term of appointment: 4 years. 

Entity name: Election Assistance Commission, Board of Advisors; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 37; 
Term of appointment: 2 years. 

Entity name: Foreign Intelligence and Information Commission; 
Duration: 60 days after final report; 
Number of members: 10; 
Term of appointment: Duration of commission. 

Entity name: Health Information Technology (HIT) Policy Committee; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: Varies; minimum of 20 members; 
Term of appointment: 3 years. 

Entity name: Independent Payment Advisory Board; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 18; 
Term of appointment: 6 years. 

Entity name: Indian Law and Order Commission; 
Duration: 90 days after 
final report; 
Number of members: 9; 
Term of appointment: Duration of 
commission. 

Entity name: Migratory Bird Conservation Commission; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 7; 
Term of appointment: Statutorily unclear; apparently for duration of 
Congress in which appointment was made. 

Entity name: National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and 
Integrity; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 18; 
Term of appointment: 6 years. 

Entity name: National Capital Planning Commission; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 12; 
Term of appointment: Presidential appointments for 6 years and mayoral 
appointments for 4 years. 

Entity name: National Commission on the Structure of the Air force; 

Duration: 6 months, 30 days; 
Number of members: 8; 
Term of appointment: 
Presidential appointments for 6 years and mayoral appointments for 4 
years. 

Entity name: National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 18; 
Term of appointment: 4 years. 

Entity name: National Rural Investment Board; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 14; 
Term of appointment: 4 years. 

Entity name: Social Security Advisory Board; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 7; 
Term of appointment: 6 years. 

Entity name: United States-China Economic and Security Review 
Commission; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 12; 
Term of appointment: 2 years. 

Entity name: United States Commission On Civil Rights; 
Duration: No statutory end date; 
Number of members: 8; 
Term of appointment: 6 years. 

Entity name: United States Commission on International Religious 
Freedom; 
Duration: September 14, 2014; 
Number of members: 10; 
Term of appointment: 2 years[A]. 

Entity name: Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission; 

Duration: 20 days after close of project; 
Number of members: 5; 
Term of appointment: 4 years. 

Source: GAO analysis of Congressional Research Service information. 

[A] Nine of the 10 Commission members are limited to a 2-year 
appointment and 2 terms. The Ambassador-at-Large, who is an ex-officio, 
non-voting Commission member, is not subject to the appointment or term 
limitations. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Analysis of Department of State Cables Concerning 
International Religious Freedom: 

We asked the Department of State (State) to provide us with cables 
concerning international religious freedom sent from January 2009 
through October 2012. State provided 183 cables, 5 of which were 
duplicates. We analyzed the cables to obtain information on the 
activities U.S. embassies and other U.S. government entities conduct 
to promote religious freedom. However, because not all activities are 
reported in cables, and because State might not have located all the 
relevant cables sent during this time period, this analysis does not 
provide a full list of all religious freedom-related activities that 
State performed globally during this time period. We developed 10 
categories to analyze, or code, the activities described in the 
cables. We included a category for duplicate cables within the list of 
10 categories and a category titled "other" for cables that did not 
fit into any one of the 9 categories.[Footnote 62] Because many of the 
cables covered a variety of topics, our coding rules allowed multiple 
codes to be applied to each cable. Two analysts independently coded 
each cable and then reconciled any differences in their coding. 

Table 2: Analysis of 178 Cables Sent by U.S. Embassies and Consulates, 
January 2009-October 2012: 

Cable category: Status of religious freedom; 
Description of category: Cable provides an update concerning the 
status of religious freedom in a particular country (positive or 
negative) and may discuss actions being taken by the foreign 
government (positive or negative). The update may be provided in 
conjunction with a discussion of activities described in the following 
categories; 
Number of cables: 108. 

Cable category: U.S. embassy interaction with nongovernmental 
organizations (NGOs), religious leaders/organizations, or relevant 
individuals; 
Description of category: Cable describes either an attempt by U.S. 
embassy officials to interact with NGOs, religious leaders/
organizations, or relevant individuals on religious freedom issues (or 
vice versa) or an actual instance in which the two sides interacted on 
the subject. These bilateral interactions include only representatives 
from the U.S. embassy, such as the Ambassador, Consulate General, and 
political officers, and representatives from one NGO, religious 
organization, or a relevant individual; 
Number of cables: 63. 

Cable category: Activities conducted to promote religious tolerance and 
dialogue; 
Description of category: Cable provides a summary of an activity 
organized and/or funded by the U.S. embassy to promote religious 
tolerance or dialogue in country by bringing people of different 
faiths and/or representatives of different organizations together. 
Others from State or within the U.S. government may have participated 
in or led the activity. Such activities may include, for example, 
roundtable discussions, dinners, working groups and may include 
representatives from NGOs, religious organizations, and/or foreign 
governments; 
Number of cables: 40. 

Cable category: U.S. embassy interaction with foreign government 
officials; 
Description of category: Cable describes either an attempt by U.S. 
embassy officials to interact with foreign government officials on 
religious freedom issues (or vice versa) or an actual instance in 
which the two sides interacted on the subject. These bilateral 
interactions include only representatives from the U.S. embassy, such 
as the Ambassador, Consulate General, and political officers, and 
foreign government officials; 
Number of cables: 31. 

Cable category: Visit by high-level U.S. government official/s; 
Description of category: Cable describes a visit by a high-level U.S. 
official--such as the President, Secretary of State, Ambassador-at-
Large for International Religious Freedom, Under Secretary, Assistant 
Secretary, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Special Envoy, or other high-
level U.S. government official--in which religious freedom was a 
primary focus of the visit or factored heavily into discussions with 
foreign government officials and/or NGO and religious organizations' 
representatives; 
Number of cables: 30. 

Cable category: U.S. government assistance to NGOs, religious 
organizations, or individuals; 
Description of category: Cable provides a description of assistance 
and/or the status of the assistance provided by a U.S. government 
agency, including State, the U.S. Agency for International Development 
(USAID), and the Department of Defense, to NGOs, religious 
organizations, or individuals in a specified country. The assistance 
is intended to support the organization's or individual's efforts to 
improve religious freedom in country and may include financial and/or 
nonfinancial assistance, such as training; 
Number of cables: 14. 

Cable category: U.S. embassy representatives' participation in events 
promoting religious freedom; 
Description of category: Cable describes participation by one or more 
U.S. embassy representatives, such as the Ambassador, Consulate 
General, and political officers, in an event focused primarily on 
promoting religious freedom. The event was not organized by the U.S. 
embassy but may have been organized by foreign government officials, 
NGOs, or religious organizations in a specified country; 
Number of cables: 11. 

Cable category: U.S. government assistance to foreign governments; 
Description of category: Cable provides a description of assistance 
and/or the status of the assistance provided by a U.S. government 
agency, including State, USAID, and Department of Defense, to a foreign 
government. The assistance is intended to support the foreign 
government's efforts to improve religious freedom in country and may 
include financial and/or nonfinancial assistance, such as training; 
Number of cables: 5. 

Cable category: Other; 
Description of category: Cable does not fit into one of the first 
eight categories; 
Number of cables: 16. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State cables. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Selected Results from Survey of Nongovernmental 
Organizations: 

We conducted a survey of 131 nongovernmental organizations (NGO) that 
we identified as having conducted work related to international 
religious freedom. Of the 131 NGOs, 84 responded to the survey. The 
survey addressed the Department of State's (State) and the U.S. 
Commission on International Religious Freedom's (USCIRF) international 
religious freedom activities, including their respective annual 
reports; State's designations, and USCIRF's recommendations for 
designations, of Countries of Particular Concern (CPC); overall U.S. 
government progress on international religious freedom; and U.S. 
international religious freedom policy.[Footnote 63] For a full 
description of the survey's methodology, see appendix I. Figures 4 
through 11 summarize selected results of the NGO responses to our 
survey. We selected these survey results because they add additional 
detail to the information summarized in the report. 

Figure 4: NGOs' Ratings of the Overall Progress the U.S. Government 
Has Made With Respect to the Specified Activities: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph] 

N = 84. 

Factor: Overall progress in promoting International Religious Freedom; 
Great progress: 2; 
Good progress: 14; 
Moderate progress: 20; 
Some progress: 27; 
No progress: 10; 
No opinion/Not checked: 11. 

Factor: Engaging in dialogue with foreign governments to effect 
changes in policy; 
Great progress: 2; 
Good progress: 8; 
Moderate progress: 18; 
Some progress: 31; 
No progress: 12; 
No opinion/Not checked: 13. 

Factor: Engaging in dialogue with NGOs and civil society groups on IRF 
issues; 
Great progress: 4; 
Good progress: 14; 
Moderate progress: 24; 
Some progress: 23; 
No progress: 7; 
No opinion/Not checked: 12. 

Factor: Bringing together foreign governments and NGOs/civil society 
to dialogue on IRF issues; 
Great progress: 1; 
Good progress: 8; 
Moderate progress: 14; 
Some progress: 27; 
No progress: 11; 
No opinion/Not checked: 23. 

Factor: Partnering/working with other governments on IRF issues; 
Great progress: 0; 
Good progress: 4; 
Moderate progress: 13; 
Some progress: 35; 
No progress: 13; 
No opinion/Not checked: 19. 

Factor: Partnering/working with multilateral organizations on IRF 
issues; 
Great progress: 2; 
Good progress: 4; 
Moderate progress: 19; 
Some progress: 22; 
No progress: 14; 
No opinion/Not checked: 23. 

Factor: Obtaining the release of prisoners of conscience; 
Great progress: 0; 
Good progress: 7; 
Moderate progress: 15; 
Some progress: 31; 
No progress: 12; 
No opinion/Not checked: 19. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: Numbers in graphic represent responses to the survey question: 
"How much progress has the U.S. government made in promoting each of 
the following international religious freedom activities?" 

[End of figure] 

Figure 5: NGOs' Ratings of the Usefulness of State's Annual 
International Religious Freedom Report with Respect to the Specified 
Factors: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph] 

N = 70. 

Factor: Overall usefulness of the report; 
Extremely useful: 14; 
Very useful: 22; 
Useful: 19; 
Somewhat useful: 11; 
Not useful at all: 1; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 3. 

Factor: Reports ability to assist your organization's advocacy efforts; 
Extremely useful: 12; 
Very useful: 21; 
Useful: 14; 
Somewhat useful: 11; 
Not useful at all: 3; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 9. 

Factor: For your organization’s education and training purposes; 
Extremely useful: 7; 
Very useful: 11; 
Useful: 17; 
Somewhat useful: 10; 
Not useful at all: 6; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 19. 

Factor: To assist your organization in disseminating information; 
Extremely useful: 8; 
Very useful: 13; 
Useful: 24; 
Somewhat useful: 9; 
Not useful at all: 5; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 11. 

Factor: To assist your organization in providing legal advice; 
Extremely useful: 5; 
Very useful: 6; 
Useful: 8; 
Somewhat useful: 6; 
Not useful at all: 5; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 40. 

Factor: To assist your organization’s program implementation; 
Extremely useful: 5; 
Very useful: 8; 
Useful: 16; 
Somewhat useful: 11; 
Not useful at all: 6; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 24. 

Factor: For your organization’s research purposes; 
Extremely useful: 13; 
Very useful: 22; 
Useful: 12; 
Somewhat useful: 10; 
Not useful at all: 3; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 10. 

Factor: Report’s Ability to impact religious freedom in country; 
Extremely useful: 3; 
Very useful: 13; 
Useful: 19; 
Somewhat useful: 19; 
Not useful at all: 6; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 10. 

Factor: Report’s ability to impact U.S. policy; 
Extremely useful: 6; 
Very useful: 8; 
Useful: 16; 
Somewhat useful: 28; 
Not useful at all: 3; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 9. 

Factor: Timeliness of report’s information to inform decision; 
Extremely useful: 3; 
Very useful: 13; 
Useful: 18; 
Somewhat useful: 20; 
Not useful at all: 4; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 12. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: Numbers in graphic represent responses to the survey question: 
"How useful does your organization believe State's annual international 
religious freedom report to be with respect to each of the following?" 
This represents a subset of respondents that replied "yes" to the 
following question: "Is your organization familiar with the annual 
international religious freedom report produced by the Department of 
State?" 

[End of figure] 

Figure 6: NGOs' Ratings of State's Annual International Religious 
Freedom Report with Respect to the Specified Factors: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph] 

N = 70. 

Factor: Overall Credibility of Report; 
Excellent: 19; 
Very good: 20; 
Good: 22; 
Fair: 5; 
Poor: 1; 
No opinion/Not checked: 3. 

Factor: Accuracy of information in the report; 
Excellent: 18; 
Very good: 20; 
Good: 20; 
Fair: 7; 
Poor: 1; 
No opinion/Not checked: 4. 

Factor: Comprehensiveness of information in the report; 
Excellent: 10; 
Very good: 19; 
Good: 28; 
Fair: 6; 
Poor: 3; 
No opinion/Not checked: 4. 

Factor: Objectivity of information in the report; 
Excellent: 16; 
Very good: 15; 
Good: 19; 
Fair: 11; 
Poor: 5; 
No opinion/Not checked: 4. 

Factor: Timeliness of information in the report; 
Excellent: 12; 
Very good: 15; 
Good: 24; 
Fair: 9; 
Poor: 6; 
No opinion/Not checked: 4. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: Numbers in graphic represent responses to the survey question: 
"How would your organization rate State's annual international 
religious freedom report with respect to each of the following 
factors?" This represents a subset of respondents that replied "yes" to 
the following question: "Is your organization familiar with the annual 
international religious freedom report produced by the Department of 
State?" 

[End of figure] 

Figure 7: NGOs' Ratings of the Usefulness of USCIRF's Annual Report on 
International Religious Freedom with Respect to the Specified Factors: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph] 

N = 70. 

Factor: Overall usefulness of the report; 
Extremely useful: 13; 
Very useful: 20; 
Useful: 18; 
Somewhat useful: 6; 
Not useful at all: 3; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 4. 

Factor: Reports ability to assist your organization's advocacy efforts; 
Extremely useful: 12; 
Very useful: 19; 
Useful: 17; 
Somewhat useful: 7; 
Not useful at all: 3; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 6. 

Factor: For your organization’s education and training purposes; 
Extremely useful: 6; 
Very useful: 19; 
Useful: 12; 
Somewhat useful: 10; 
Not useful at all: 4; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 13. 

Factor: To assist your organization in disseminating information; 
Extremely useful: 9; 
Very useful: 21; 
Useful: 14; 
Somewhat useful: 9; 
Not useful at all: 3; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 8. 

Factor: To assist your organization in providing legal advice; 
Extremely useful: 5; 
Very useful: 9; 
Useful: 4; 
Somewhat useful: 5; 
Not useful at all: 4; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 37. 

Factor: To assist your organization’s program implementation; 
Extremely useful: 3; 
Very useful: 9; 
Useful: 8; 
Somewhat useful: 12; 
Not useful at all: 7; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 25. 

Factor: For your organization’s research purposes; 
Extremely useful: 8; 
Very useful: 21; 
Useful: 16; 
Somewhat useful: 6; 
Not useful at all: 3; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 10. 

Factor: Report’s Ability to impact religious freedom in country; 
Extremely useful: 4; 
Very useful: 13; 
Useful: 16; 
Somewhat useful: 18; 
Not useful at all: 7; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 6. 

Factor: Report’s ability to impact U.S. policy; 
Extremely useful: 4; 
Very useful: 14; 
Useful: 14; 
Somewhat useful: 17; 
Not useful at all: 4; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 11. 

Factor: Timeliness of report’s information to inform decision; 
Extremely useful: 4; 
Very useful: 15; 
Useful: 17; 
Somewhat useful: 15; 
Not useful at all: 2; 
No opinion/Not checked/Not applicable: 11. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: Numbers in graphic represent responses to the survey question: 
"How useful does your organization believe USCIRF's annual 
international religious freedom report to be with respect to each of 
the following?" This represents a subset of respondents that replied 
"yes" to the following question: "Is your organization familiar with 
the annual international religious freedom report produced by the U.S. 
Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF)?" 

[End of figure] 

Figure 8: NGOs' Ratings of USCIRF's Annual Report on International 
Religious Freedom with Respect to the Specified Factors: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph] 

N = 64. 

Factor: Overall Credibility of Report; 
Excellent: 21; 
Very good: 25; 
Good: 13; 
Fair: 2; 
Poor: 2; 
No opinion/Not checked: 1. 

Factor: Accuracy of information in the report; 
Excellent: 20; 
Very good: 23; 
Good: 14; 
Fair: 4; 
Poor: 1; 
No opinion/Not checked: 2. 

Factor: Comprehensiveness of information in the report; 
Excellent: 10; 
Very good: 27; 
Good: 16; 
Fair: 6; 
Poor: 2; 
No opinion/Not checked: 3. 

Factor: Objectivity of information in the report; 
Excellent: 14; 
Very good: 23; 
Good: 16; 
Fair: 6; 
Poor: 3; 
No opinion/Not checked: 2. 

Factor: Timeliness of information in the report; 
Excellent: 13; 
Very good: 22; 
Good: 22; 
Fair: 4; 
Poor: 1; 
No opinion/Not checked: 2. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: Numbers in graphic represent responses to the survey question: 
"How would your organization rate USCIRF's annual international 
religious freedom report with respect to each of the following 
factors?" This represents a subset of respondents that replied "yes" to 
the following question: "Is your organization familiar with the annual 
international religious freedom report produced by the U.S. Commission 
on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF)?" 

[End of figure] 

Figure 9: NGOs' Ratings of the Extent to Which State's CPC 
Designations Have Helped or Hindered the NGOs' International Religious 
Freedom-Related Work: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

N = 84. 

Greatly helped: 16; 
Somewhat helped: 22; 
Neither helped or hindered: 26; 
Somewhat hindered: 5; 
Greatly hindered: 1; 
No opinion: 14. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: Numbers in graphic represent responses to the survey question: 
"The Secretary of State periodically designates certain countries as 
Countries of Particular Concern (CPC). Overall, have the CPC 
designations helped or hindered your organization's IRF-related work?" 

[End of figure] 

Figure 10: NGOs' Ratings of the Extent to Which USCIRF's 
Recommendations for CPC Designations Have Helped or Hindered the NGOs' 
International Religious Freedom-Related Work: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

N = 84. 

Greatly helped: 12; 
Somewhat helped: 28; 
Neither helped or hindered: 21; 
Somewhat hindered: 3; 
Greatly hindered: 2; 
No opinion: 16. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: Numbers in graphic represent responses to the survey question: 
"In its annual report, USCIRF recommends certain countries for CPC 
designation. Overall, have USCIRF's CPC recommendations helped or 
hindered your organization's international religious freedom-related 
work?" 

[End of figure] 

Figure 11: NGOs' Ratings of the Extent to Which They Agree or Disagree 
That the Countries Included in USCIRF's Annual Report Fully Represent 
the Worst Offenders of Religious Freedom: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

N = 84. 

Strongly agree: 26; 
Somewhat agree: 26; 
Neither agree nor disagree: 10; 
Somewhat disagree: 3; 
Strongly disagree: 2; 
No opinion: 17. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: Numbers in graphic represent responses to the survey question: 
"The USCIRF annual international religious freedom report covers the 
approximately 25 to 30 countries that it either recommends as CPCs or 
places on its Watch List. Does your organization agree or disagree that 
the 25 to 30 countries USCIRF chooses to include in its annual 
international religious freedom report fully represent the worst 
offenders of religious freedom?" 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Comptroller: 
1969 Dress Avenue: 
Charleston, SC 29405: 

March 13, 2013: 

Dr. Loren Yager: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Dear Dr. Yager: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, 
"International Religious Freedom Act: State Department and Commission 
Are Implementing Responsibilities but Need to Improve Interaction" GAO 
Job Code 320901. 

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report. 

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact 
Daniel Nadel, Acting Deputy Director, Bureau of Democracy, Human 
Rights and Labor at (202) 647-1237. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

James L. Millette: 

cc: 
GAO — Thomas Melito: 
DRL — Uzra Zeya: 
State/OIG — Evelyn Klemstine: 

[End of letter] 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

International Religious Freedom Act: State Department and Commission 
Are Implementing Responsibilities but Need to Improve Interaction 
(GAO-13-196, GAO Code 320901): 

Thank you for allowing the Department of State the opportunity to 
comment on the draft report, "International Religious Freedom Act: 
State Department and Commission Are Implementing Responsibilities but 
Need to Improve Interaction." The Department deeply appreciates the 
professionalism of the GAO team over the course of this yearlong 
project, and the thoughtfulness and sensitivity they demonstrated in 
carrying out their duties in Washington and across five countries. 

The Department of State takes significant pride in the work undertaken 
by Foreign Service, Civil Service, and locally engaged staff to 
advance the cause of religious freedom as a key objective of U.S. 
foreign policy. The Department thanks the GAO for recognizing that the 
Department of State--through its Office of International Religious 
Freedom, the Ambassador at Large, and a host of other State entities 
in the U.S. and abroad--is successfully implementing the assigned 
responsibilities under the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act. 

The GAO report makes one recommendation: In order to enhance U.S. 
efforts to promote international religious freedom, GAO recommends 
that the Secretary of State and the Chair of the U.S. Commission on 
International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) jointly define how the 
Department of State and USCIRF should interact in their efforts to 
promote international religious freedom, paying particular attention 
to defining the ex-officio role of the Ambassador-at-Large on the 
commission. The Department of State concurs with the GAO's 
recommendation, and will work with USCIRF to systematize more fully 
the interactions between the Department and USCIRF. The Department has 
already begun conversations with USCIRF to determine the best way 
forward in this regard. 

Again, the Department of State expresses our sincere thanks to the GAO 
for this constructive audit. Please be assured that the Department 
takes the GAO's findings very seriously and will implement the above 
recommendation as part of the effort to advance religious freedom and 
human rights around the world. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Commission on International 
Religious Freedom: 

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom: 
732 North Capitol Street, NW Suite A714: 
Washington, DC 20401: 
202-523-3240: 
202-523-5020 (FAX): 

March 12, 2013: 

Thomas Melito: 
Director, International Affairs & Trade: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Melito: 

I write today on behalf of the U.S. Commission on International 
Religious Freedom (USCIRF; the Commission) regarding the report by the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled, "International 
Religious Freedom Act: State Department and Commission Are 
Implementing Responsibilities but Need to Improve Interaction." We 
thank the GAO for undertaking this important investigation of U.S. 
promotion of international religious freedom abroad. USCIRF 
Commissioners and staff worked diligently over the past year with 
GAO's team of investigators to provide information and answer 
questions about our work. We appreciate the dedication and 
professionalism with which the GAO investigators undertook their 
efforts to understand the complex challenges facing the U.S. 
government's global promotion of religious freedom. 

We welcome GAO's finding that USCIRF is implementing its primary 
responsibilities, as set forth in the International Religious Freedom 
Act of 1998 (IRFA). USCIRF consistently has worked to fulfill its 
statutory requirements as an independent and bipartisan commission to 
conduct an ongoing review of violations of religious freedom around 
the world, evaluate U.S. policy, and provide recommendations to the 
President, Secretary of State, and Congress. To that end, USCIRF has 
proven to be a dependable resource for the U.S. government, providing 
independent analysis of the worst situations involving severe 
violations of religious freedom around the world and constructive 
policy recommendations on how the United States can effectively 
encourage governments to respect the right to freedom of religion or 
belief. 

We also appreciate GAO's survey of nongovernmental organizations, and 
are pleased that the NGO community holds a very positive view of 
USCIRF's reports, further demonstrating the high quality of our work 
and our role as an independent and reliable resource. 

Regarding interactions with the State Department, in recent years 
USCIRF Commissioners and staff have endeavored to improve the working 
relationship with the State Department generally and the Ambassador at 
Large specifically. The Ambassador at Large, as an ex officio 
Commission member, is welcome to attend all Commission meetings, and 
USCIRF staff has frequent contact with her office. We welcome the GAO 
recommendation that the Secretary of State and the USCIRF Chair 
jointly define how the State Department and USCIRF should interact in 
our mutual efforts to promote religious freedom. We stand ready for 
such a consultation. 

Regarding the impact of USCIRF's findings and recommendations on 
bilateral relations, it is important to note that IRFA mandates that 
USCIRF review the facts and circumstances of religious freedom 
violations based on international standards, and make recommendations 
to the U.S. government. USCIRF's mandate is neither to conduct 
diplomacy nor balance religious freedom against other U.S. national 
interests, and we make clear in all documents and meetings that the 
Commission is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government 
advisory body, separate and distinct from the Executive Branch and the 
State Department. However, at times, our findings draw the ire of 
offending governments that would prefer their shortcomings remain 
hidden and may result in bilateral friction. We recognize that 
USCIRF's role sometimes poses a challenge for the State Department, 
but that role has been mandated by law, and —as the report notes — it 
also has produced opportunities for proactive diplomacy. USCIRF will 
continue to make every effort to mitigate confusion while continuing 
to fulfill our statutory mandate. 

Pertaining to the GAO's findings on the State Department, USCIRF for 
14 years has been monitoring the State Department's implementation of 
IRFA. GAO reviewed USCIRF reports that highlight areas where IRFA 
implementation has fallen short or where Congress' intent has not been 
fulfilled. For instance, USCIRF has highlighted the lack of annual 
designations by the State Department of "countries of particular 
concern" in recent years, the need for more vigorous U.S. government 
efforts to raise religious freedom concerns in bilateral relations, 
and the low placement of the Ambassador at Large within the State 
Department hierarchy. Of these and other issues, we note the report 
highlights how the Ambassador's organizational status differs from 
other Ambassadors-at-Large, and that the State Department has provided 
inconsistent reporting policy and guidance to these Ambassadors. 

As USCIRF reports have shown and independent studies verified, 
violations of the freedom of religion or belief can lead to 
instability and violence, while respect for religious freedom supports 
conditions that can lead to peace, prosperity, and stability. At a 
time when restrictions on religious freedom are increasing and many 
countries are redefining the state's relation to religion, it is 
critical that the United States government expand and increase its 
efforts to protect this fundamental freedom. USCIRF is honored to help 
the U.S. government in this important endeavor. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Katrina Lantos Swett: 
Chair: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601 or MelitoT@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Cheryl Goodman and Michael 
Rohrback (Assistant Directors), Judith Williams, Sushmita Srikanth, 
Juan P. Avila, Amanda Bartine, and Kathryn Crosby made key 
contributions to this report. Jessica Bull, Lynn Cothern, Martin De 
Alteriis, Etana Finkler, Rachel Girshick, Heather Hampton, David 
Hancock, Brandon Hunt, Jill Lacey, Reid Lowe, Mary Moutsos, Elizabeth 
Repko, and Jeremy Sebest also provided substantial assistance. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] See International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-
292, Oct. 27, 1998, as amended by later acts such as A Bill to Amend 
the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to Provide Additional 
Administrative Authorities to the United States Commission on 
International Religious Freedom, and to Make Technical Corrections to 
the Act, and for other purposes, Pub. L. No. 106-55, Aug. 17, 1999; 
and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 
Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-75, Dec. 23, 
2011. 

[2] Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, Rising Tide 
of Restrictions on Religion (Washington, D.C.: 2012). 

[3] Pub. L. No. 112-75, Sec. 7, Dec. 23, 2011. 

[4] The UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights on December 10, 1948. According to the UN, the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights complemented the UN charter by providing a 
road map to guarantee the rights of individuals. On December 16, 1966, 
the UN General Assembly adopted the International Covenant on Civil 
and Political Rights, which provides for the protection of the rights 
to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Together, the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on 
Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on 
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights make up the International Bill 
of Human Rights. 

[5] Hillary Clinton, "Remarks at the Release of the 2011 International 
Religious Freedom Report" (address by the Secretary of State given at 
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C., July 
30, 2012). 

[6] The Secretary of State created the position of Special Adviser for 
Religious Freedom in DRL in August 1998. Robert Seiple served in that 
position until he was sworn in as the Ambassador in May 1999, at which 
point the Special Adviser position ceased to exist. 

[7] President Clinton nominated Robert Seiple as the Ambassador in 
early 1999, a few months after the Act's passage. President Bush 
nominated John Hanford in November 2001, 10 months after taking 
office. President Obama initially nominated Suzan Johnson Cook in June 
2010, 17 months after taking office. Congress did not act on this 
nomination. President Obama renominated Johnson Cook in February 2011 
and she was sworn in on May 16, 2011. 

[8] A demarche is a formal diplomatic representation of one 
government's official position, views, or wishes on a given subject to 
an appropriate official in another government or international 
organization. Demarches generally seek to persuade, inform, or gather 
information from a foreign government. Governments may also use a 
demarche to protest or object to actions by a foreign government. 

[9] Specifically, the Act states that of the three members of the 
commission that are appointed by the President pro tempore of the 
Senate, two shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the leader 
in the Senate of the political party that is not the political party 
of the President, and one shall be appointed upon the recommendation 
of the leader in the Senate of the other political party. Similarly, 
the Act states that of the three members of the commission that are 
appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, two shall be 
appointed upon the recommendation of the leader in the House of the 
political party that is not the political party of the President, and 
of which one of the members shall be appointed upon the recommendation 
of the leader in the House of the other political party. See Pub. L. 
No. 105-292, Sec. 201(b) and 22 U.S.C. § 6431(b)(1)(B). 

[10] See Pub. L. No. 106-55, Aug. 17, 1999. 

[11] Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, Pub. L. 
No. 107-228. Section 681(g), Sept. 30, 2002. 

[12] United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 
Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-75, Section 6, 
Dec. 23, 2011. 

[13] According to the first and second Ambassadors, the Office was 
responsible for issuing some block grants for religious freedom-
related efforts during their tenures. However, State provided us with 
documentation for religious freedom-related grants only from 2007 to 
the present. 

[14] State organizes countries into six regions: Africa (sub-Sahara), 
East Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Eurasia, Near East (North Africa 
and the Middle East), South and Central Asia, and the Western 
Hemisphere. 

[15] We asked State to provide us with cables concerning international 
religious freedom sent from January 2009 through October 2012. State 
provided 183 cables, 5 of which were duplicates. We analyzed the 
cables we received to obtain information about the activities that 
U.S. embassies and other U.S. government entities perform to promote 
religious freedom. However, because not all activities are reported in 
cables, and because State may not have located all relevant cables 
sent during this time period, this analysis may not provide a full 
list of all religious freedom-related activities that State performed 
globally during this time period. 

[16] The Special Representative and former Special Envoy officially 
launched "2011 Hours Against Hate" at the Organization of Security and 
Cooperation in Europe in Vienna, Austria, on February 17, 2011. In 
2012, the program continued as "2012 Hours Against Hate." 

[17] In February 2011, the Secretary of State launched the Strategic 
Dialogue with Civil Society to provide a forum for cooperation and 
discussion with civil society. The Religion and Foreign Policy Working 
Group was one of six working groups that made up the Strategic 
Dialogue. The other working groups that State created were Governance 
and Accountability, Democracy and Human Rights, Empowering Women, 
Global Philanthropy, and Labor. The current Ambassador co-chaired the 
Religion and Foreign Policy Working Group with the Under Secretary for 
Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights and the Executive 
Director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood 
Partnerships. The working groups that made up the Strategic Dialogue 
with Civil Society are no longer meeting, because the Strategic 
Dialogue was an initiative of Secretary Clinton's. 

[18] See "Resolution adopted by the UN Human Rights Council, 16/18, 
Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, 
and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, 
persons based on religion or belief," A/HRC/RES/16/18. 

[19] The 3-day meeting focused on the identification of best practices 
for prohibiting discrimination against individuals on the basis of 
religion or belief, training government officials to avoid 
discrimination, establishing enforcement mechanisms, and engaging with 
members of religious communities. 

[20] In 1971, the Turkish government closed Halki Seminary, a Greek 
Orthodox theological seminary, enforcing a law that placed religious 
and military training under state control. State officials and 
religious representatives described the seminary as the only school 
where Turkey's Greek minority educated its clergy. In August 2011, the 
Turkish government adopted a decree to return all confiscated property 
belonging to minority foundations in Turkey. On January 11, 2013, 
Turkey's Council of Foundations announced that it had agreed to return 
approximately 470 acres of forest land to the Halki Seminary. 

[21] Although State has published the International Religious Freedom 
Report every year since 1999, the time period covered by the reports 
has changed over time. The 1999 report covered an 18-month period from 
January 1, 1998, to June 30, 1999. The subsequent 11 annual reports 
covered 12-month periods from July 1 of the year before the report was 
issued to June 30 of the year in which the report was issued. In 2010, 
to shift to a calendar-year reporting period, State published a second 
report covering the 6 months from July 1, 2010, through December 31, 
2010. The 2011 report thus represented the first report to correspond 
to the full calendar year. State expects reports for 2012 and 
subsequent years to continue on the full-year schedule. 

[22] U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
Office of Inspector General, Inspection of Department-Required and 
Congressionally Mandated Reports: Assessment of Resource Implications, 
ISP-I-11-11 (Washington, D.C.: 2010). 

[23] In 2010, the Inspector General concluded that State's Human 
Rights Report, Trafficking in Persons Report, and International 
Narcotics Control Strategy Report are also among the most resource 
intensive of the 310 congressionally mandated reports for which State 
is responsible. We have previously reviewed State's process for 
preparing the Human Rights Report and the Trafficking in Persons 
Report; see GAO, Human Rights: State Department Followed an Extensive 
Process to Prepare Annual Country Reports, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-561R] (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 
2012) and Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting 
Needed to Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-825] (Washington, D.C.: July 18, 
2006). 

[24] According to a State official, since 2010, the Office has issued 
detailed annual guidance to U.S. embassies that covers each section of 
the report, suggests sources, and identifies types of data to include 
or exclude when assessing the status of religious freedom in a country. 

[25] The Act assigned the responsibility for making CPC designations 
to the President, and the President delegated this responsibility to 
the Secretary of State in 1999. 

[26] The Act generally requires designation of CPCs to be published in 
the Federal Register, but State has not always taken this action, 
making it difficult to determine every instance in which a Secretary 
of State designated countries. 

[27] State designated the Miloševi regime in Serbia as a CPC in 1999 
and 2000 but withdrew the designation after the Miloševi regime was 
removed from power in 2001. State designated the Taliban regime as a 
CPC in 1999, 2000, and 2001. In March 2003, State designated CPCs but 
did not designate the Taliban regime. According to the 2003 
International Religious Freedom Report, in December 2001, the U.S. 
government discussed religious freedom with Afghan officials, after 
the fall of the Taliban regime. State designated Iraq as a CPC in 
1999, 2000, 2001, and 2003. State removed Iraq from the list in 2004 
after the fall of Saddam Hussein and the development of a transitional 
government. 

[28] For example, the President is not required to take action if, 
among other factors, the President took action against the CPC 
pursuant to the Act in the preceding year. See Section 402(c)(4) of 
Pub. L. No. 105-292, codified at 22 U.S.C. § 6442(c)(4). 

[29] In October 2010, the Foreign Service Institute replaced the 
Global Issues and Human Rights Workshop course with a new, 5-day 
course, "Promoting Human Rights and Democracy," which contains a 60-or 
90-minute segment dedicated to promoting religious freedom. 

[30] The Executive Secretariat, which consists of the Executive 
Secretary and four Deputy Executive Secretaries, is responsible for 
coordinating State's internal work and serving as the liaison between 
State's bureaus and the offices of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, 
and Under Secretaries. The secretariat also handles State's relations 
with the White House, the National Security Council, and other cabinet 
agencies. 

[31] State's organizational guidelines categorize the Secretary of 
State at organizational level 1, Deputy Secretaries at level 1a, Under 
Secretaries at level 1b, Ambassadors-at-Large at level 1c, and 
Assistant Secretaries at level 2. The guidelines also note that there 
are some exceptions to the basic nomenclature but that the exceptions 
are, for the most part, reflected in specific legislative 
requirements. See U.S. Department of State, Foreign Affairs Manual, 
Volume 1: Organization and Functions, 1 FAM 014.3 Organizational 
Nomenclature. 

[32] U.S. Department of State Office of Inspector General, Report of 
Inspection: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ISP-I-03-48 
(Washington, D.C.: 2003). 

[33] In 2010, the Secretary of State's Quadrennial Diplomacy and 
Development Review called for State to respond to the political, 
social, and economic challenges of the 21st century. In early 2012, 
Secretary Clinton realigned State's bureaus and offices to implement 
the results of the review. During this reorganization, the existing 
Bureau for Democracy and Global Affairs was renamed as the Bureau for 
Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights. 

[34] U.S. Department of State and Broadcasting Board of Governors 
Office of Inspector General, Compliance Follow-up Review of Bureau of 
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ISP-C-05-41 (Washington, D.C.: 
2005). 

[35] In 2005, State's Inspector General urged DRL to revisit the 
concern at a future date. In addition, the Inspector General noted 
that the Office of Inspector General would look closely at this matter 
again during the bureau's next inspection. However, the Inspector 
General has not conducted an inspection of DRL since that time. 

[36] In our report, "USCIRF officials" refers to the commissioners and 
USCIRF staff, unless otherwise noted. It does not refer to the 
Ambassador, who serves as an ex-officio member of the commission. 

[37] See USCIRF, Annual Report 2010 (Washington, D.C.: May 2010), 52. 

[38] USCIRF, Annual Report 2012 (Washington, D.C.: March 2012), 106. 

[39] According to USCIRF, Hadi Al-Mutif has been jailed for apostasy 
since 1994 and is one of the longest-serving religious prisoners in 
the world. 

[40] Leonard A. Leo and Rev. William Shaw, "In Nigeria, Getting Away 
with Murder: The Government in Africa's Most Populous Country Turns a 
Blind Eye to Violence between Muslims and Christians," Baltimore Sun, 
January 23, 2012, accessed February 19, 2013, [hyperlink, 
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-nigeria-
20120123,0,6743343.story]. 

[41] Pub. L. No. 106-55, Sec. 1, 113 Stat. 403, Aug. 17, 1999. 

[42] According to USCIRF, the commission is independent, bipartisan, 
and dedicated to defending the universal right to freedom of religion 
or belief abroad. 

[43] At the time of the Laotian delegation, the first Ambassador had 
left State and was president of the Institute for Global Engagement. 

[44] To develop our survey universe, we selected organizations from a 
variety of sources, including those that had engaged with State or 
USCIRF or were on lists of groups active in religious freedom issues. 
See appendix I for additional information on our survey methodology. 

[45] We sent the survey to 131 NGOs that promote international 
religious freedom, and 84 of these NGOs sent responses to the survey. 
However, because not all NGOs responded to each question, the total 
number of responses varied for each question. The results reflect NGO 
responses rating the U.S. government as having made great, good, 
moderate, or some progress. See appendixes I and IV for additional 
information on our survey. 

[46] The results reflect NGO responses rating the U.S. government as 
having made great, good, moderate, or some progress. 

[47] In February 2011, the Secretary of State launched the Strategic 
Dialogue with Civil Society to provide a forum for cooperation and 
discussion with civil society. The Religion and Foreign Policy Working 
Group was one of six working groups that made up the Strategic 
Dialogue. 

[48] Of the two NGOs we spoke with in Afghanistan, one was not 
familiar with State's annual report, and the other provided 
information to State but assumed that State's report was for internal 
U.S. government discussion only. 

[49] These results reflect NGO responses rating State's annual report 
as extremely or very useful and as useful or somewhat useful. 

[50] These results reflect NGO responses rating the overall 
credibility and accuracy of State's annual report as excellent, very 
good, or good. 

[51] These results reflect NGO responses rating USCIRF's annual report 
as extremely or very useful and as useful or somewhat useful. 

[52] These results reflect NGO responses rating USCIRF's annual report 
as excellent, very good, or good. 

[53] However, State officials and NGO representatives told us that, in 
addition to Vietnam's CPC designation, the Vietnam government's desire 
to achieve most favored nation trading status with the United States 
was also a strong incentive for instituting religious freedom reforms. 

[54] Two of the 84 respondents (2 percent) did not respond to the 
question. 

[55] One of the 84 NGOs (1 percent) did not respond to the question. 

[56] These results reflect NGO responses of "strongly agree" and 
"somewhat agree" to USCIRF's annual CPC recommendations. 

[57] USCIRF established a watch list to identify countries that 
require close monitoring because of the nature and extent of 
violations of freedom of thought, conscience, religion, or belief 
engaged in, or tolerated by, the governments. 

[58] Pub. L. No. 112-75, Sec. 7, Dec. 23, 2011. 

[59] Congressional Research Service, Congressional Membership and 
Appointment Authority to Advisory Commissions, Boards, and Groups, 
RL33313 (Washington, D.C.: February. 2013). 

[60] The CRS report includes only temporary congressional commissions 
active as of February 2013. 

[61] Nine of the 10 commission members are limited to a 2-year 
appointment and 2 terms. The Ambassador-at-Large, who is an ex-
officio, nonvoting commission member, is not subject to the 
appointment or term limitations. 

[62] Cables coded as "other" included (1) cables from the Secretary of 
State to all U.S. embassies and consulates sharing information and 
talking points concerning events such as UN Human Rights Council 
Resolution 16/18 expert-level meetings and the publication of the 
annual International Religious Freedom Report and (2) cables from U.S. 
embassies or consulates in which religious freedom was not discussed. 

[63] The results of our survey reflect the views of only the 84 
respondents and cannot be generalized to the 131 international 
religious freedom organizations that received the survey or to any 
other organizations involved in religious freedom-related work. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]