The United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process gives non-government organizations (NGOs) an opportunity to provide suggestions on how each country can improve their human rights efforts. However, some organizations, which claim to be NGOs, are actually government-influenced. These groups, which we call government-organized non-governmental organizations (GONGOs) are sponsored by governments that abuse human rights and want to further their interesting by pretending that they respect human rights. To locate GONGOs, we read through the UPR reports for each country, identified NGOs that submitted information, and read through the information that they submitted. If an NGO says only positive statements about the country they are reporting on, we would code it as a GONGO. This is because credible NGOs, such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, will normally provide recommendations as all countries have aspects that they can improve on. We also coded the type of rights that each NGO, including GONGOs, mention in their submission, such as civil and political rights or economic, social, and cultural rights. By coding these organizations, we could better understand how credible NGOs may differ from GONGOs, and how GONGOs are used by governments to infiltrate the UN UPR system. While we have not finished coding the reports for every country, we did have some initial findings. First, we found that GONGOs mostly appeared in Latin America (e.g. Venezuela, Cuba), some in Eastern Europe (e.g. Belarus), and Asia (e.g. China, Viet Nam). Cuba had the highest percentage of GONGOs in their UPR submission, followed by Venezuela and Belarus. Additionally, Venezuela, China, and Cuba had the most NGO submissions. This suggests that the number of NGO submissions is correlated with whether or not a country’s report has GONGOs. Perhaps by inundating the reports with a large quantity of submissions, governments with connections to GONGOs can 1) have multiple GONGOs to back up a statement and 2) dilute focus away from credible NGOs. Reassuringly, however, the majority of NGOs that we have coded are not GONGOs. Furthermore, GONGOs can look and behave very differently depending on the country. To illustrate this, we compared China and Belarus, both are countries with GONGO submissions. For China, most GONGOs are foreign while in Belarus, they are almost exclusively local. Additionally, most GONGOs discuss economic, social, and cultural rights in China while in Belarus, the type of rights that GONGOs discuss are more varied. This project allowed us to understand the prevalence of GONGOs in the UPR process, providing abusers with a vehicle to improve their reputations and revealing that many countries egregiously violate human rights. Future research could explore the extent to which GONGOs impact UPR recommendations or ways to amend the loophole in the UPR process to prevent GONGOs.