That will ultimately be in accordance with the government.
As for prisoners of conscience, when I talk to stakeholders, not one person was confused by that.
I understand why we want to split hairs here, but the reality is that this is really quite pedantic. I believe that most government officials, diplomats and stakeholders in those discussions know what a prisoner of conscience is, although there are going to be some on the edge as to whether that person is a prisoner of conscience or not. I'm even open to putting a definition in there, if that is the difference between having your party's support and not.
What I would not want to see is it being overly prescriptive, because I would rather see someone's name published than make it overly prescriptive. All we're doing is publishing. We're not freeing anyone who is maybe on the broader side of “prisoner of conscience”, and quite frankly, I don't think it's a valid argument. That's an argument about any definition; we could squabble at the edges of any definition.