Updated April 24, 2018
Global Human Rights: The Department of State’s Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices
Introduction
report” concerning the human rights conditions of recipient
The State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights
countries, thereby serving as the legislative basis for the
Practices are an annual U.S. government account of human
annual human rights reports. An amendment in 1979 further
rights conditions in countries around the globe. The reports
broadened the reporting requirement to cover all U.N.
characterize countries on the basis of their adherence to
member states.
“internationally recognized human rights,” which generally
refer to the civil and political rights set forth in the
Despite their legislative origin in connection with U.S.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the
foreign assistance, the reports have generally served as an
United Nations General Assembly in 1948).
information source for U.S. policy rather than as a direct
instrument for restricting aid. The precise role that the
The most recent reports cover the calendar year 2017 and
reports should play in U.S. policy has been the subject of
were issued on April 20, 2018. They provide individual
continued debate.
narratives for nearly 200 countries and are available on the
Department of State website. As with prior reports, the
Evolution of the Reports
2017 reports do not compare countries or rank them based
In the early reports, there was concern within the State
on the severity of human rights abuses documented.
Department about publicly characterizing the human rights
However, the preface to the 2017 reports highlights China,
conditions in other countries, particularly U.S. allies. The
Russia, Iran, and North Korea, stating that the governments
first reports were criticized for being biased and thin on
of these countries “violate the human rights of those within
substance. Over time, with improvements in the breadth,
their borders on a daily basis and are forces of instability as
quality, and accuracy of the reports, experts have generally
a result.” Some other changes in emphasis and terminology
come to recognize them as authoritative. The modern
in the 2017 reports were noted in U.S. and international
reports are cited by lawmakers, foreign governments,
media coverage.
human rights organizations, scholars, and others. The scope
of the reports has also broadened as Congress has amended
legislation to add or expand human rights topics in response
Human Rights Categories Covered in the 2017
to evolving situations and contexts. Topics that now receive
Reports
increased coverage include worker rights, the rights of
Integrity of the Person
sexual minorities and persons with disabilities, and
Civil Liberties
corruption, among others. In addition, the reports reference
Political Participation
separate congressionally mandated reports on international
Corruption and Government Transparency
religious freedom (IRF) and trafficking in persons (TIP).
Governmental Attitude toward Human Rights Investigations
Discrimination and Societal Abuses
Worker Rights
Relevant Legislation in the 115th Congress
Legislative Mandate
S. 1177 and H.R. 2643, introduced in May 2017, would
amend the FAA to require the human rights reports
The statutory requirement for the human rights reports is
to cover the institutionalization of children and the
found in Sections 116 and 502B of the Foreign Assistance
subjection of children to cruel, inhuman, or degrading
Act (FAA) of 1961 (P.L. 87-195), as amended. Both of
treatment, unnecessary detention, and denial of the
these provisions were first enacted via congressional
right to life, liberty, and the security of persons. S.
amendments in the mid-1970s and have been broadened
1172 and H.R. 2491, also introduced in May 2017,
and strengthened over time through additional amendments.
would require that the reports include information on
human rights violations based on sexual orientation or
The 1970s was a formative period for human rights-related
gender identity.
legislation as Congress sought to enshrine human rights as a
priority in U.S. foreign policy. In 1974, Section 502B of the
FAA (22 U.S.C. 2304) was enacted to withhold U.S.
Drafting Process
security assistance from governments that engage in “a
consistent pattern of gross violations of international human
The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human
rights.” The following year, Section 116 (22 U.S.C. 2151n)
Rights, and Labor (DRL) coordinates the drafting and
was added, introducing similar restrictions for recipients of
issuance of the human rights reports. Embassy officers use
U.S. development assistance. Accompanying these
reporting guidance, issued annually by DRL, to formulate
provisions was language requiring that the Secretary of
initial drafts for each country; the reports are then reviewed
State transmit to Congress each year a “full and complete
and edited by DRL staff, cleared by relevant bureaus within
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Global Human Rights: The Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
the State Department, and further refined in consultation
example, is the basis for the President’s annual designation
with the embassies and regional bureaus. Near the end of
of countries with particularly severe violations of religious
the process, country reports of particular public interest or
freedom, while the TIP report categorizes countries based
scrutiny may be reviewed by the Secretary of State’s office
on their effort to curb human trafficking; the worst-ranked
and the National Security Council staff. By law, the reports
are subject to potential foreign assistance restrictions.
are to be issued by February 25, but in practice this issuance
is often delayed until March or April.
The State Department’s view is that the reports are not
policy documents, but are a valuable tool in informing U.S.
State Department officials describe the extensive review
policy on human rights as well as decisions on foreign aid,
process as aimed at ensuring the reports are both
asylum, and other matters. Proponents of this model argue
comprehensive and objective. Information sources for the
that, beyond their role as an information source, the reports
reports are wide-ranging and include press reports,
also have indirect impacts on policy; the report drafting
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), intergovernmental
process itself, for example, helps educate and inculcate
and international organizations, academics, and activists.
concern for human rights within the U.S. foreign service.
Figure 1. Overview of the Report Drafting Process
Furthermore, being identified as a human rights-abusing
nation by the U.S. government is a stigma most nations
seek to avoid. Nonetheless, some NGOs have argued that
the reports should have a more concrete role in influencing
U.S. relations with foreign governments. Others contend
that tying policy too closely to human rights could overly
constrain the government’s flexibility to address other
challenges and would not serve overall U.S. interests. Some
have also argued that more directly linking the reports to
policy may politicize the reports and thereby erode the goal
of objectivity for which they have become known.
What role the reports should serve, and the role of human
rights in U.S. foreign policy more broadly, have been
contested since the reports began in the 1970s. Congress
has played a key role in these debates, often as a source of
pressure on the executive branch to place greater emphasis
on human rights when formulating foreign policy.
Source: Created by CRS based on GAO-12-561R (May 2012), p. 8.
Resource Requirements and the Annual Deadline
Note: Timelines are for illustrative purposes and may vary.
In October 2010, the State Department’s Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) identified the human rights reports
Human Rights in the United States
as among the most personnel-resource intensive of the
The State Department human rights reports do not cover
department’s congressionally mandated reports. According
human rights conditions in the United States, a fact that has
to the OIG, the breadth of the reports and the extensive
sometimes been a point of criticism. State Department
consultative drafting and review process has contributed to
officials have pointed out that the United States actively
the State Department failing to meet the annual statutory
participates in other mechanisms that evaluate domestic
deadline for issuing the reports.
human rights conditions, such as the U.N. Human Rights
Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
The U.S.
In the 114th Congress, the Human Rights Accountability
government submitted its most recent report on human
Act of 2015 (S. 1627) was introduced, which would have
rights conditions in the United States through the UPR
withheld a proportion of diplomatic and consular program
process in 2015.
funding from the State Department for every 30 days the
Considerations for Congress
human rights reports were late. Looking ahead, Congress
The human rights reports have become a widely recognized
may also consider whether to study the resource burdens
and consistent element of the State Department’s approach
associated with these and other congressionally mandated
to human rights. Nevertheless, stakeholders continue to
reports and/or encourage the State Department to streamline
debate the purpose of the reports, as well as issues
aspects of the reports or the report drafting process.
concerning the resources needed to produce them.
Additional resources and references are available to
Relationship to U.S. Foreign Policy
congressional clients upon request.
Findings from the human rights reports have rarely been
Michael A. Weber, Analyst in Foreign Affairs
used to restrict U.S. foreign aid in accordance with Section
502B or Section 116 of the FAA. The reports differ from
IF10795
other congressionally required annual reports, such as those
on IRF and TIP, which feature mechanisms to identify and
penalize problematic governments. The IRF report, for
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Global Human Rights: The Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10795 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED