CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHT

For PG Semester 4 Students (MU)

Dr. Arvind Adityaraj

Professor & Ex. Head
Department of Political Science
College of Commerce, Arts & Science

Introduction;
Human rights are certain universal moral and legal standards to which those in power must stick
in their treatment of people. They are the sum of individual and collective rights laid down in
state constitutions and international law. It is a common observation that human beings
everywhere require the realization of diverse values or capabilities to ensure their individual and
collective wellbeing. This requirement, whether conceived or expressed as a moral or a legal
demand, often painfully frustrated by social aa well as natural forces, resulting in exploitation,
oppression, persecution and other forms of deprivation. Deeply rooted in these observations are
the beginning of human rights and the national and international legal processes associated with
them. They strive to shield humankind from gross political, legal and social abuses and various
forms of deprivations. They are a set of righteous ideas about the treatment to which all
individuals are eligible by dint of being human1. Adhering to these basics and also laying the
foundation for enabling people to actually exercise and enjoy their rights through affirmative
measures, primarily concern state authorities such as governments, armed forces and police, but
increasingly those having non-governmental power such as multinational corporations, business
establishments, as well as religious entities or individuals that exert power over other people. The
universality of human rights is sometimes been challenged claiming they are a Western notion,
part of a neocolonial attitude that is propagated worldwide. A study published by the United
nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizations (UNESCO) in 1968 clearly showed
that the profound aspirations underlying human rights correspond to concepts – the concepts of
justice, an individual’s integrity and dignity, freedom from oppression and persecution and
individual participation in collective endeavours – that are encountered in all civilization and
periods. Today the universality of human rights is borne out by the fact that the majority of
nations, covering the full spectrum of cultural, religious and political traditions, have adopted
and ratified the main international human rights instruments. Brzezinski called human rights “the
single most magnetic political idea of the contemporary time”. Human rights delimit state power
and at the same time, require states to take positive measures ensuring an environment that
enables all people to enjoy their human rights. History of last 250 years has been shaped by the
struggle to create such an environment. Starting with American and French revolutions in the
late eighteenth century, the idea of human rights has driven many a revolutionary movement for
empowerment and for control over the wielders of power.
The global demand for the codification of the “Human Rights” is relatively
new as it gained momentum only after the world underwent the horrors of the Second World
War and the worldwide outrage against the ‘Holocaust’ perpetrated by the Nazis to wipe out the
Jewish population from Europe. Before that how a state treated its inhabitants was its own
business, a matter of “domestic jurisdiction” not of international concern. Human rights define
relationships between individuals and power structures, especially the state. The United Nations
General Assembly on December 10, 1948, adopted the “Universal declaration of Human Rights”
(HDHR) to prevent the future occurrence of any similar atrocities against the humanity. UDHR
was followed by the “European Convention on Human Rights” (1954) and the “International
Covenant on Civil and Economic Rights” (1966). All the foregoing three documents form the
centerpiece of a moral doctrine which may be called the “Contemporary International Bill of
Rights”. In the present world human rights is the matter of daily diplomacy among states.
Numerous international organizations deal with it regularly and it is never absent from the
agenda of every Principal Organ and Specialized Agency of the United Nations and of major
regional organizations.
Definitions:
Human beings have universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction or other localizing
factors, such as ethnicity and nationality. They define relationships between the individuals and
power structures and requires state to take positive measures ensuring an environment that
enables all people to enjoy their human rights. They include an extensive range of notions and
include many areas of human conditions. Despite widespread acceptance of the principle of
human rights, the core questions that have yet to receive conclusive answers are as follow2:
1. Whether human rights are to be seen as divine, moral or legal entitlements.
2. Whether they are to be validated by intuition, culture, custom, social contract, principles
of distributive justice, or as prerequisites for happiness or the achievements of human
dignity.
3. Whether they are understood as revocable or partially revocable and
4. Whether they are to be broad or limited in number and content.
Besides, even when the principles of human right is accepted, there are issues such as3:
1. Whether human rights are a way of privileging narrowly conceived social interests over
the common interest.
2. Whether they are the political tools of the predominantly progressive elites and
3. Whether they are stalking horse for western economic imperialism and so forth.
Notwithstanding the foregoing issues, most of the human rights mentioned in the
various declarations and covenants issued by the United Nations reflect worldwide input. In the
words of J. Ife, “People from different backgrounds readily endorse the concept of human rights,
which refers to those rights that every human being possesses and is entitled to enjoy simply by
virtue of being human4”.
The Encyclopedia Britannica defines the term human rights as, “Whatever their
theoretical justification, human rights refers to a wide continuum of values or capabilities
thought to enhance human agency or protect human interests and declared to be universal in
character, in in some sense equally claimed for all human beings present and future”5.
According to James Nickel “Human Rights aim to secure for individuals the necessary
conditions for leading a minimally good life”6.
In another definition Human rights are regarded as “those basic standards without
which people cannot live in dignity. To violate someone’s human rights is to treat that person as
though she or he were not a human being. To advocate human rights is to demand that the human
dignity of all people be respected7.
 J. L .Macfarlane defines human rights as “those moral rights which are owned to
each man and woman solely by reason of being a human being. These are the rights which no
one can be deprived without a grave affront to justice”8.
The World Conference on Human Rights held in 1993 in Vienna stated in the
Declaration; “All human rights derive from the dignity and worth inherent in the human person
and that the human person is the central subject of human rights and fundamental freedom’.
According to Bennett: “Human rights include those areas of individual or group freedom that are
immune from governmental interference because of their basic contribution to human dignity or
welfare and are subject to governmental guarantee protections or promotions”9.
While no single definition could possibly cover the entire spectrum of what
human rights include, the United Nations in 1987 defined the term human in a most
comprehensive manner. It says: “Human rights are those rights, which are inherent in our nature
and without which we cannot live as human beings. Human rights and fundamental freedoms
allow us to fully develop and use our human qualities, our intelligence, our talents and our
conscience and to satisfy our spiritual and other needs. They are based on mankind’s increasing
demand for a life in which the inherent dignity and worth of each human being will receive
respect and protection”.
A close scrutiny of the foregoing definitions point out that by human rights we
mean four things;
1. Rights those are inherent in and integral to every human being by the fact of one’s birth.
2. Rights are basic for human life and its development.
3. Human rights presume the existence of these social conditions in which they can be
exercised,
4. Human rights are those which every civilized state ought to incorporate in its constitution
and laws as the recognition of basic human needs and demands.
5. Regarding human rights ‘Dignity’ is the key word.
Differences Between Human Rights and Fundamental Rights:
Human Rights are those basic standards without which people cannot live in dignity. Human
rights are inherent to everyone. On the other hand, fundamental rights are those rights or for that
matter human rights which are guaranteed by the constitution.
Secondly, all fundamental rights are human rights, but all human rights are not fundamental
rights. Human rights are concerned with the all human beings of the world but fundamental
rights are related between one state and their citizens.

Basic Characteristics of human Rights:

Like all normative traditions, the concept of human rights is a product of its time.
Hence before analyzing the content and legitimate scope of human rights and the priorities
claimed among them, it is essential to study the impact of the various schools of thoughts and
actions upon the human rights traditions since its evolution. Inspired by the three themes of the
French Revolution (1789), the French jurist Karel Vasak has put forward his idea of “three
generations” of human rights. The first generation covers civil and political rights (Liberty), the
second generation comprises of economic, social and cultural rights (Equality and the third
generation includes solidarity rights (Fraternity). It is argued that civil and political rights are
based on the concept of non-interference of the state in the private affairs, whereas social,
economic and cultural rights require the state to take positive action. It is today widely
acknowledged that, for human rights to become reality, states and international community must
take steps to create the conditions and legal frameworks necessary for the exercise of human
rights. Vasak’s model does not suggest a linear process in which each generation of rights gives
birth to the next and then passes away. It also does not express that one generation of rights is
more important than another. In fact the three generations of rights are perceived to be
cumulative, overlapping and above all inter dependent and inter penetrating6.
The general idea of human rights could be spelt out by specifying its certain defining
features;
As Political Norms; Human rights are concerned mainly with how people should be treated by
their government and institutions. They are not ordinary moral norms applying mainly to
interpersonal conduct. However, some rights such as rights against racial and sexual
discrimination are primarily concerned to regulate private behaviour. Here the concept of human
rights imposes duties on governments to prohibit and discourage such discriminations in society.
As Minimal Standards; Human rights are concerned with avoiding the worst that can happen to
a human being rather than with achieving the best. Their target is to ensure minimally good lives
for all people. Henry Shue is of the opinion that human rights concern the “lower limit on
tolerable human conduct rather than great aspirations and exalted ideals”7. As minimal standards
they leave most legal and policy maters open to democratic decision making at the national and
local levels. This allows them to accommodate a great deal of cultural and institutional variation.
As International Norms Covering All Countries and All People; Human rights are the sorts
of norms that are aptly recommended to all countries. International law plays a crucial role in
giving human rights global reach. Human rights are universal provided that certain rights for
example the right to vote, are held only by adult citizen, that some human rights documents focus
on vulnerable groups such as children, women and indigenous people and some rights such as
the right against genocide are group rights.
As High Priority Norm; According to Maurice Cranston “A human Rights is something of
which no one may be deprived without a grave affront to justice”. He adds; “Human rights
represent certain deeds which should never be done; certain freedoms which should never be
invaded; something which is supremely sacred”8. Dwarkin also expressed the same thought in
his writings. According to him human rights are those rights which the state should not override
even in the name of public interest and which can be exercised in spite of the law of the country9.
As Individualistic Concept; The idea of human rights is derived from acceptance of man as a
free individual, a being of dignity and worth, endowed with reason and conscience and capable
of moral choice and activity.
As Enforceable Instruments; The issue of enforceability is rather complex one. But without it,
the fruits of the concept of human rights cannot reach to the people. To be enforced by the state,
human rights require a domestic legal system based upon the rule of law, affording protection to
the individuals to enjoy the rights.
The term human rights replaced the phrase “natural rights”, which was heavily dependent upon
the concept of natural laws for their existence. The concept of natural law became a subject of
debate with several philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), one of the founders of
the philosophy of Utilitarianism, wrote; “Rights are the child of law; from real laws come real
right; but from imaginary laws, from ‘law of nature’ come imaginary rights………Natural rights
is simple nonsense……..rhetorical nonsense, nonsense upon stilts”1. Agreeing with Bentham,
David Hume (1711–1776) called natural law and natural rights as unreal metaphysical
phenomena. American philosopher Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was the first to use the
term “human rights” in his treatise Civil Disobedience, the work which deeply influenced
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) and Martin Luther King (1929-1968) in developing their ideas on
non-violent resistance to unethical government actions.
Origins of the Concept of Human Rights;
Throughout the history of mankind, people acquired rights and responsibilities through
membership in a group viz. a family, nation, religion, class, community of state. The religious
texts such as The Vedas, The Bible and the Koran addressed the question of people’s duties,
rights and responsibilities.
The origin of the legal documents of people’s rights could be traced in the legal
codex issued in 2050 B.C. by Ur Nammu, the king of Ur. The best preserved example of this
type of document in the history of mankind is the Code of Hammurabi created in Mesopotamia
in 1780 B.C. It includes variety of rights including women’s rights, children’s rights and slave
rights and also prescribes punishments if any violation of such rights takes place. The Persian
king Cyrus the great, after his victory over Babylon in 539 B.C. issued the Cyrus Cylinder. It
was in fact the Code of Cyrus documented on a cylinder shaped stone, which was discovered in
1879, now kept in British Museum and recognized by many as the first human rights document.
The cylinder abolished slavery and allowed the citizens of the empire to practice their religious
beliefs freely. In the third century B.C. in the ancient India Mauryan emperor Asoka the Great
inscribed in his Edicts principles of civil rights similar to the rights mentioned in the modern
human rights documents. Asoka define the main principles of non-violence, tolerance of all sects
and opinions, obedience to parents, respect for teachers and priests, being liberal towards friends,
humane treatment of servants and generosity towards all.
It was in ancient Greece and Rome, where the concept of human rights began to take
a greater meaning than the just prevention of arbitrary persecution. Human Rights under the
influence of the doctrines of the Stoics began to be identified with natural rights, which originate
from natural law. According to the Greek tradition of Socrates and Plato, natural law is the law
which reflects the natural order of the universe, essentially the wills of gods who control nature.
A classic example of this view is given in Sophocles play Antigone, in which the title character
acted under the laws of gods and defied King Creon’s edict and decided that her brother
Polynices should remain unburied on the battlefield because he had fought traitorously against
his own city10. the idea of natural rights continued in ancient Rome, where the Roman jurist
Ulpian believed that natural rights belonged to every person, whether they were Roman citizens
or not. In Graeco-Roman and medieval times, doctrines of natural laws concerned mainly the
duties, rather than rights of man. This is evidenced in the writings of Aristotle and St. Thomas
Aquinas, which recognized the legitimacy of slavery and serfdom.
With the decline of feudalism from about the 13th century and continuing through
the Renaissances to the peace Treaty of Westphalia (1648), Europe witnessed certain socio-
political changes, which were necessary for the idea of natural rights to gain general recognition.
During this period, resistance to religious intolerance and political and economic bondage and
the failures of rulers to fulfill their obligations under natural law, combined to shift the
conception of natural law from duties to rights. In 1215 King John of England issued the Magna
Carta or the “Great Charter”, a document forced upon him by the Pope and English barons. The
document enumerated a number of what later came to be thought of as human rights. Among
them were the rights of the church to be free from the governmental interference, the rights of all
free citizens to own and inherit property and be free from excessive taxes. It established the
principle of due process and equality before law and also included provisions forbidding bribery
and official misconduct. Although the Magna Carta could not itself limit the power of the king
in the medieval period, it was rediscovered in the Elizabethan and the Stuart periods as a
powerful document upon which constitutional law was founded in Britain and elsewhere. The
Magna Carta was followed in England by Petition of Rights (1628) and the English Bill of
Rights (1689). The Bill of Rights, besides ensuring other rights to the people made the British
King subject to the rule of law. It protected people from excessive bail or fine, cruel and unusual
punishments and unfair trails. It also guaranteed juries, impartial courts and independent judges.
Several philosophic and scientific achievements in the 17th and 18th century Europe,
which included materialism of Hobbes, nationalism of Descartes and Leibniz and empiricism of
Bacon and John Locke, encouraged a belief in natural law and universal order11. John Locke in
his essay Of Civil Government declared “the natural liberty of man is to be free from any
superior power on earth and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have
only the law of nature for his rule”12. Locke outlined in his Two Treaties of Government (1688)
that human kind before entering in a civil society enjoyed certain rights, such as; right to life,
liberty and property, in the state of nature and upon entering civil society surrendered to the state
only the right to enforce these natural rights and not the rights themselves. Failure of the state to
protect the foregoing rights would give the human kind right to responsible popular revolution
against the state.
The two great revolutions of the eighteenth century- the American war of
Independence (1776) and the French Revolution (1789) gave birth to two important documents –
The U.S. Declaration of Independence ratified by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776 and
the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizens approved by the National Assembly of
France on August 26, 1789. In the former Thomas Jefferson, who studied Locke and
Montesquieu, authored the famous statement “that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness”13. While in the latter Marquis de Lafayette, a close friend of George
Washington, under the inspiration of the American declaration, proclaimed; “men are born and
remain free and equal in rights” and that “the aim of every political association is the
preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man”14.
Philosophers such as Thomas Paine in his The Rights of Man, John Stuart Mill in
his On Liberty and Hegel further expanded the idea of universality. The later half of the
nineteenth century witnessed number of issues takes centre stage, most of which comprises the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They included slavery, serfdom, brutal working
conditions, minimum wages, child labour, the American the native Indian problem and the civil
war over slavery (1862-65) etc.
Nonetheless, many specific civil rights and human rights movements succeeded in
bringing great socio-political changes during this time. Labour unions in the U.S. and in many
European countries brought about laws granting workers the right to strike, establishing
minimum work conditions, forbidding or regulating child labour, establishing a forty hour work
week etc. The women’s suffrage movement succeeded in getting the right to vote. National
liberation movements in many countries succeeded in throwing out the colonial powers.
Movements by long oppressed racial and religious minorities such as the Civil Rights Movement
in the United States succeeded in many parts of the world.
The idea of human rights emerged stronger after the Second World War. The world
public opinion wanted to ensure that never again would anyone like the European Jewish
population be so unjustly denied life, freedom, food, shelter and nationality. The essence of these
emerging human rights principles was captured in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1941 States
of the Union Address when he spoke of a world founded on four essential freedoms; freedom of
‘speech and religion’ and freedom from ‘want and fear’. The calls came from across the globe
for human right standards to protect citizens from abuses by their governments, standards against
which nations could be held accountable for the treatment of those living within their borders.
These voices played a crucial role in the San Francisco meeting that ratified the United Nations
Charter in 1945.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948);
The Nazi Germany’s modus operandi for the final solution of the Jewish question, in which they
systematically attempted to eliminate the Jews of Europe, brought the issue of human rights into
the international mainstream. The international community lacked the legal and political
language to condemn them. Massacring one’s own citizen simply was not an established legal
offence. The German government might be held liable under the laws of war for its treatment of
citizen’s in occupied territories, but in killing German nationals it was merely exercising its
sovereign rights. The Nuremberg War Crimes Trail (1945-46), followed the Second World War,
introduced novel changes in the crimes against humanity. For the first time in human history,
officials and politicians were held legally accountable to the international community for
offences against individual citizens, not states and individuals who in many of the cases were the
German nationals.
It was in the United Nations, however, that human rights really emerged as a
subject of international politics. The Charter of the United Nations (1945) begins by reaffirming
a “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human being, in the equal
rights of men and women and of nations large and small”. To advance the goal of promoting
respect for human rights for all, the U.N. established a Commission on Human Rights and
charged it with the task of drafting a document spelling out the meaning of fundamental rights
and freedoms proclaimed in the Charter. The Commission guided by the forceful leadership of
Eleanor Roosevelt, captured the world’s attention. On 10 December 1948, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (U.D.H.R.) was unanimously adopted by the 56 members of the
United Nations. Eight nations, however, chose to abstain. The UDHR, popularly referred to as
the international Magna Carta, began a revolution in the field of international law as how a
government treats its own citizens was no more a simple domestic issue, but a matter of
legitimate international concern. Its Preamble emphatically asserts that; “Recognition of the
inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”15.
For having a look into the rights enshrined in the UDHR, it has to be divided into three
categories. The first category could be a set of civil and political rights (Articles-2-21), which
derive its basis from the 17th and 18th century reformist theories associated with the English,
American and French Revolutions. Inspired by the political philosophy of liberal individualism
and the related economic and social doctrine of laissez faire, rights which could be placed under
this category favours the abstention over the intervention of government in the quest for human
dignity. These rights mostly negative in character, include right to life, liberty and security of the
person (Article-3); freedom from gender, racial and equivalent forms of discriminations (Article-
2); freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude (Article-4); freedom from torture and from
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article-5); freedom from arbitrary arrest,
detention or exile (Article-9); the right to a fair and public trial (Article-10); freedom from
interference in privacy and correspondence (Article-12); freedom of movement and residence
(Article-13); the right to asylum from persecution (Article-14); freedom of thought. Conscience
and religion (Article-18); freedom of opinion and expression (Article-19); freedom of peaceful
assembly and association (Article-20), right to participate in government, directly or through
peaceful elections (Article-21); right to own property and not to be deprived of it arbitrarily
(Article 17).
The second category could be a set of economic, social and cultural rights (Article 22-
27), which are influenced by the socialist ideology. Predominantly they are negative in character
and are essentially a response to the abuses of capitalism and individualism. Prominent among
them are; the right to security (Article-22); the right to work and protection against
unemployment (Article-23); the right to rest and periodic holidays with pay (Article 24); the
right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of self and the family (Article-
25); the right to education (Article26); the right to the production of one’s scientific, literary and
artistic production (Article 27).
Finally the third category could be a set of rights that come under the general category
and are essential for the implementation of the rights enshrined in the UDHR in the letter and
spirit. Prominent among them is the right according to which everyone is entitled to a social and
international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully
realized (Article28); ensuring a political environment in which, while exercising one’s rights and
freedom, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for
the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for rights and freedoms of others (Article29);
the right prohibiting any state group or person from engaging in any activity resulting in the
destruction of any of the rights and freedom set forth therein (Article 30).
The impact of the UDHR has been substantial. Its ideals have been incorporated into
the constitutions of most of the 185 nations which are the members of the United Nations. After
its adoption, in the subsequent years, the UDHR has achieved the status of “customary
international law”. The Document is both universal and indivisible as it applies to all people
everywhere and all rights are equally important to the full realization of one’s humanity. The
UDHR, however, is only a declaration and not a treaty and hence lacks any enforcement
provisions. Rather it is a statement of intent, a set of principles to which the U.N. member states
commit themselves in an effort to provide all people a life of human dignity.
The UDHR was followed by a range of international conventions, covenants,
declaration and other treaties. Most of these come from the United Nations. But other groups
have also adopted human rights standards. The European Community, for example, has adopted
a Convention of human rights.
The European Convention of Human Rights;
Throughout he 1950s and 60s, efforts to create international human rights treaties continued
within the United Nations and other international organizations. In the early 1950s the West
European countries created an international human rights treaty within the Council of Europe. It
covers standard civil and political rights similar to the first twenty-one articles of the UDHR.
Economic and social rights were treated in a separate document, The European Social Charter.
The signatories of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) were originally the
Western European countries, but after the end of the Cold War many Eastern European countries
including Russia also joined the ECHR, which at present has 41 member nations.
The ECHR also created a human rights court, the European Court of Human Rights
based in Strasbourg, France, to interpret human rights norms and to adjudicate disputes. The
judges are appointed as independent jurists rather than as mere representatives of the member
states. Citizens from the member states with complaints regarding human rights violations and
who have been unable to find a remedy in their national courts may petition the ECHR.
Complaints by governments about human rights violations in another member states are also
permitted. The Helsinki Accords;
In the post Second World War world, concern for protection of human rights was evident at the
global level under the auspices of the United nations or otherwise. Most notable among such
effort was the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) convened in Helsinki,
Finland on July 3, 1973 and concluded on August 1, 1975. The Conference was attended by 35
nations, including the NATO countries, The Warsaw Pact nations and 13 neutral and Non-
Aligned European nations. The Final Act of the Conference, also known as the Helsinki
Accords, begins with a Declaration on principles guiding relations between participatory states in
which, the participating states solemnly declares their determination to respect and put into
practice, alongside other guiding principles; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief and respect for the equal rights
of the people and their right to self determination. It was hopped that this Declaration, the
importance of which is reflected in its having been signed by almost all the principal
governmental leaders of the day, would mark the beginning of a liberalization of authoritarian
regimes.
From the earliest discussion it was clear that the Helsinki Final Act was not intended
as a legally binding instrument. The expressions “determination to respect” and to “put into
practice” were seen as moral commitments only.

The Human Rights Covenants;

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights drafted two treaties to establish mechanisms
for enforcing the UDHR: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
its Optional Protocols and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR). Together with the UDHR, they are commonly referred to as the International Bill of
Rights. The ICCPR was opened for signature on December19, 1966 and entered into force on
March 23, 1976. The ICCPR includes almost all the rights proclaimed in the UDHR excluding
the right to own property and the right to asylum. Apart from these it designates several rights
that are not listed in the UDHR, among them the right to all peoples to self determination and the
right of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities to enjoy their own culture, to profess and
practice their own religion and to use their own language.
In addition, the Covenant calls for the establishment of a Human Right Committee,
comprising persons serving in their individual expert capacities to study reports submitted by the
state parties on measures they have adopted to give effects to the rights recognized in the
Covenants. Also noteworthy is the covenant’s Second Optional Protocol, which focuses on the
global abolition of the death penalty. Adopted in 1989 and entered into force in 1991, it has been
favourably received in most of the countries of Western Europe and many countries in the North
and South Americas though not in the United States.
Subsequent Human Rights Documents;
In addition to the covenants in the International Bill of Human Rights, the United Nations has
adopted more than 20 principal treaties further elaborating human rights. These include;
(a) Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (UN 1951)
 (b) The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discriminations
(U.N. 1966)
(c) The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(U.N.1979)
(d) The Convention on the Rights of child (U.N. 1989)
(e) The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (U.N. 1984)
Other Human Rights Agencies within the United Nations;
Human rights treaties are only one part of the UN’s human rights programme. There are a
number of human rights agencies that are charged with promoting human rights independently of
the requirement imposed by the human rights treaties. These bodies include the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human Rights Commission and the Security Council.
The UN High Commissioner For Human Rights (UNHCHR); This body coordinates the
many human rights activities within the UN. The High Commissioner receives complaints about
human rights violations, assists in the development of new treaties and procedures, sets the
agenda for human rights agencies within the UN and provides advisory services to governments.
Apart from the foregoing, he is charged by the UN General Assembly to promote and protect all
civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. The High commissioner is appointed by the
Secretary General in a regular rotation of geographic regions which is approved by the General
Assembly. He serves a fixed term of four year with a possibility of renewal of an additional four
year term. The first High Commissioner was Jose Ayala Losso of Ecuador, who took office in
April 1994. Mary Robinson, formerly President of Ireland, became the second High
Commissioner in September 199716.
The Human Rights Commission (HRC); It is a standing body, composed of 53 state
representatives, created by the UN Charter. Its members are state representatives rather than
independent experts and jurists. It deals with human rights issue as matters of international
politics and diplomacy, The Commission is authorized to receive complaints alleging gross
violations of human rights and it deals with these complaints in close sessions. The HRC also
holds a public session each year in which states and non governmental organizations are invited
to identify areas in the world in which there are serious human rights problems for the
Commission to address. When the Commission decides to take up a complaint, it has a number
of means it can use. It can ask the government to respond to the complaint, appoint investigators
of its own or refer the matter to the Security Council. The Commission also has “thematic”
working groups that works with particular r types of human rights problems HRC’s
achievements include authorizing the UDHR and many human rights treaties, as well as the
extended and successful campaign against apartheid in South Africa17.
The International Criminal Court; Another U.N. agency with jurisdiction in the human rights
area is the International Criminal Court (U.N. 1998). Its members were selected in 2003. Its
jurisdiction includes genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity such as extermination,
enslavement and torture.
Human Rights and the Non-Governmental Organizations;
There are many Non-Governmental Organizations active at the international level in the areas of
human rights, war crimes and humanitarian aid, such as Amnesty International, and Human
Rights Watch are to quote a few;
Amnesty International; Amnesty International was founded in the year 1961 by a British
lawyer named Peter Benensons, a Quaker named Eric Baker and a group of journalists and
writers. Benenson was shocked and enraged by a story in a newspaper that two Portuguese
students were sentenced to seven years in prison for having raised their glasses in a toast to
“freedom” in a bar. They formed a group Appeal for Amnesty in 1961, which was announced
through Benenson’s article entitled The Forgotten Prisoners, in the Sunday Supplement of the
May 28, 1961 issue of The London Observer. The article told the stories of the six “prisoners of
conscience” from different countries and of different political and religious backgrounds, all
jailed for peacefully expressing their political and religious beliefs and called on governments
everywhere to free such prisoners. It set forth a simple plan of action, calling for strictly
impartial, non-partisan appeals to be made on behalf of these prisoners and any one who, like
them had been imprisoned for peacefully expressing their beliefs. The response was so
overwhelming that within a year groups of letter writers had formed in more than a dozen
countries, writing to defend victims of injustice wherever they might be. Hence, Amnesty
International and the modern human rights movements were both born. By the end of the year
1962, Diana Redhouse designed Amnesty’s Candle and Barbed-Wire logo. Amnesty
International’s mission statement is; “to undertake research and action focused on preventing and
ending grave abuses of the right to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and
expression and freedom from discrimination in the context of our work to promote all human
rights, as articulated in the Universal declaration Of Human Rights”18.
In the beginning, Amnesty focused on Article 18 and 19 of the UDHR-those dealing
with political prisoners or more precisely, prisoner of conscience, who espoused non-violence. In
177, Amnesty won the Nobel Peace Prize for its work defending human rights around the globe.
Over time, Amnesty International has expanded its mission to work to prevent and
end grave abuses of the right to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and
expression and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote al human
rights. It is currently running international campaigns to “Control Arms”, “Stop Violence against
Women”, and to “End the Death Penalty” amongst others. It also works directly on behalf of
individuals suffering human rights abuses. In the year 2000 alone, Amnesty worked on the cases
of 3685 named individuals and in over a third of these cases, an improvement in the condition of
the prisoners occurred. Since its foundation, amnesty has worked to defend more than 44600
prisoners in more than a hundred countries. Today there are 7500 Amnesty International groups
with almost two million members operating in 162 countries and territories.
In short, Amnesty International works on the following issues;
(a) Free all ‘Prisoners of Conscience’ (persons imprisoned for the peaceful exercise of their
beliefs.
(b) Ensure fair and prompt trails.
(c) Abolish all forms of torture and ill treatment of prisoners, including the use of death
penalty.
(d) End state sanctioned terrorism, killings and disappearances.
(e) End all forms of violence against women
(f) Co-operate with organizations that seek to put an end to human rights abuses.
(g) Raise awareness about human rights abuses around the world.
Recently, amnesty has expanded the scope of its work to include economic, social and cultural
rights, saying that these concerns are arises out of its traditional work on political and civil rights.
Its 2004 annual report said that; “it is difficult to achieve sustainable progress towards
implementation of any one human rights in isolation………Amnesty will strive to….. assert a
holistic view of rights protection. It will be particularly important to do so in relation to extreme
poverty, and the human rights issue underlying poverty”19.
Amnesty International is governed by International Executive Council (IEC)- a board
of eight members, elected for two year term by the International Council meeting, which is itself
composed of delegates from each country’s Board of Directors. The IEC hires a Secretary
General. The International Secretariat is located in London. Except for a small core of paid
directors, most of the people working for the Organization are volunteers. Amnesty does not
accept donations from governments or governmental organizations. It follows a neutrality policy
called the “country rule”, stating that members should not be active in issues in their own nation,
which also protects them from potential mistreatment by their own government.
Human Rights Watch; Human Right Watch is a United states based international human rights
non-governmental organization headquartered in New York City that produces authoritative
research reports on human rights violations, usually intended to draw international attention to
abuses and to put pressures on governments and international organizations to prevent further
violation of human rights. It sends fact-finding missions to countries to investigate violations of
human rights and generate extensive coverage in local and international media. Major issues
raised by the Organization in its reports are; social and gender discrimination, torture, military
use of children, corruption in the governmental set up and abuses in the criminal justice systems
etc. It also specializes in documenting and reporting violations of laws of armed conflict and
international humanitarian law.
Human Rights Watch was founded under the name Helsinki Watch in 1978 to monitor
the former Soviet Union’s compliance with the Helsinki Accords. As the organization grew, it
formed other “watch committees” to cover other regions of the world. In the year 1988, all the
committees were united under one umbrella to form “Human Rights Watch”. One of the original
founders and a President of the Organization was Robert L. Bernstein. Human Rights watch was
one of the six international NGOs that founded the coalition to stop the use of child soldiers in
1998.It is also the co-chair of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, a global coalition
of civil society groups that successfully lobbied to introduce the Ottawa Convention, a treaty that
prohibits the use of anti-personal landmines.
Each year, Human Rights watch gives grants to writers all over the world, who have
been the victims of political persecution and are in financial need. The Hellman/ Hamnett
grants are financed by the estate of the playwright Lillian Hellman in funds set up in her name
and that of her long-time companion, the novelist D. Hamnett. The two American writers were
interrogated in 1950s about their political beliefs and affiliations. In addition to providing much
needed financial assistance, the Hellman/Hamnett grants raise awareness of censorship around
the world.
Human Rights Watch is also a member of the International Freedom of Expression
Exchange, a global network of non-governmental organizations that monitors censorship
worldwide and campaign to defend journalists, writers, internet users and others who are
persecuted for exercising their right to freedom of expression. It also opposes the death penalty,
opposes restrictions to abortion and contraceptives, supports homosexual rights and supports
freedom of religion.
Human Rights Watch publishes detailed reports ob several individual topics and
compiles annual reports presenting and an overview of the worldwide state of human rights.
Philosophical Approaches to Human Rights;
Numerous philosophical approaches have been put forward to explain how human rights became
part of social expectations. Among them two particular approaches; the “Interest Theory
Approach” and the “Will Theory Approach”, predominate.
Interest Theory Approach; According to the interest theory approach, the principal function of
human rights is to protect and promote certain essential human interests. The interest approach is
thus primarily concerned to identify the social and biological prerequisites for human beings
leading a minimally good life. The universality of human rights is present in what are considered
to become basic, indispensable attribute for human well being, which everybody deemed
necessarily to share. The philosopher John Finnis (1980) provides a good representative of the
interest theory approach. He argues that human rights are justifiable on the grounds of their
instrumental value for securing the necessary condition of human wellbeing. He identifies seven
fundamental interests or what he terms “basic forms of human goods”, as providing the basis for
human rights. These are; life and its capacity for development; the acquisition of knowledge as
an end in itself; play , as the capacity for recreation; aesthetic expression; sociability and
friendship; practical reasonableness; the capacity for intelligent and reasonable thought process
and finally, religion or the capacity for spiritual experience20. Finnis is of the opinion that these
are the essential prerequisites for human well-being and as such serve to justify people’s claim to
the corresponding rights.
Some interest theorists also justify the duty to respect the rights of other individuals
on grounds of self-interest rather than altruism or benevolence. Reciprocal recognition and
respect of other’s rights ensures that one’s own right in the similar fashion would be protected.
The Will Theory Approach; The will theory, in contrast to the interest approach, attempts to
establish the philosophical validity of human rights upon a single human attribute: the capacity
for freedom. Will theorists argue that what is distinctive about human agency is the capacity for
freedom and that this ought to constitute the core of any accounts of rights. Hence, will theorists
view human rights as originating in or reducible to, a single constructive right, or alternatively, a
highly limited set of purportedly fundamental attribute. H.L.A. Hart (1955) inferentially argues
that all rights are reducible to a single fundamental right. He refers to this as “equal right of all
men to be free”. Hart insists that rights to such things as political participation or to an adequate
diet, for example, are ultimately reducible to derivative of individual’s equal right to liberty.
Henry Shue (1996) develops upon Hart inferential argument and argues that liberty
alone is not ultimately sufficient for grounding all of the rights posited by Hart. Shue argues that
many of these rights imply more than mere individual liberty and extend to include security from
violence and the necessary material conditions for personal survival. Thus he grounds rights
upon liberty, security and subsistence21.
Schools of Human Rights;
There are two basic schools of human rights thoughts;
Universal School; This school supports the international human rights regime from the
perspective that an international paradigm on human rights needs to be applied across the world
in a uniform manner. Followers of this school strongly support the efforts of the United Nations
in developing international covenants and treaties that work to develop an international dialogue
and consensus
Relative School; This school believes that human rights are necessary, however, as the term
implies they may vary according to the situation. On must account for cultural, social and even
religious background of individuals prior to recognizing the existence of human rights.
Why Do Human Rights Violation Occur;
While one cannot expect to arrive at a single, unified theory explaining repression around the
globe, research has identified some of the more important factor associated with systematic
human rights abuses. The causes of human rights violations could be divided into three broad
categories;
Political Explanations; Research carried out by various bodies came to a conclusion that
democratic regimes are much less likely to engage in repression than the non-democratic
regimes. In a relative vein, studies have also shown that a military presence in government is
positively associated with repression. However, authoritarian or totalitarian regimes are not the
only ones likely to use repression in a situation where their leadership feels threatened. Leaders
who confront threat to the stability and continued existence of their rule from civil war, separatist
movements or insurgent or terrorist groups are more likely to engage in repression than
governments that do not face such a threat22. In Israel, the treatment of many Palestinian
prisoners in recent decades was torture as defined by the United Nations23. Only recently, the
Supreme Court of Israel ended this practice. Turkey, a functioning parliamentary democracy
continues to engage in the widespread use of torture and political imprisonment, mainly targeted
at the Kurdish minority.
Economic Explanations; The economic argument that has received the most support from
multiple quantitative studies is the argument that underdeveloped countries are more likely to
carryout repression than developed or developing countries. In countries with fewer resources to
distribute, domestic conflicts are more likely to lead real or perceived threats that cause
repression. Research further suggests that both absolute poverty and high levels of inequality are
positively associated with repression24.
Ideological and Psychological Explanations; Ideologies that depict other groups as lesser
mortals may have the effect of dehumanizing victims and making human rights abuses such as
genocide possible. Studies of ideologies as diverse as Nazism in Germany, the Khmer Rouge in
Cambodia, the National Security Doctrine in many repressive authoritarian regimes in Latin
America, the Cultural Revolution of Mao in China etc. have shown that clinging to such extreme
ideologies have led to the ruler of the states to follow the path of repression and even genocide25.
Ideological explanation for human rights violations can either supplement political
explanation or offer competing hypothesis. As competing accounts for growing human rights
violations they point to deeper layers of societal consciousness that might be important to
understand decisions for human rights abuses by political leaders. The Holocaust was really
enabled by a particular culture of Anti-Semitism in the larger German population, rather than
being a functionalist outcome of political or economic choices of the Nazi leadership.
Psychological explanation of human rights violations often complement rather than
compete with political factors of repression. These accounts give an individual level account of
why authoritarian leaders can actually use parts of the population in their acts of human rights
violations.
Modern Human Rights Theories;
Rights Based on Natural Rights; The aftermath of the Second World War brought about a
revival of natural rights theory. This was mainly due to the extermination of the Jews by the Nazi
regime of Germany. The concept of human rights has seminally influenced conventional
international human rights norms. The UDHR reflects that influence, as seen in the Declaration’s
opening statement; “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of equal and inalienable
rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the
world26. The debt that inherent dignity and inalienable rights owe to natural law philosophy is
obvious. The key human rights treaties also reflect quite directly the foregoing moral
universalistic foundations.
Rights Based on Justice; According to John Rawls; “Justice is the first virtue of social
institution”. As human rights are an end of justice, hence, the role of justice is crucial in
understanding human rights. In fact no theory of human rights for a domestic or international
order in modern society can be advanced without considering Rawls’s thesis. John Rawls writes;
“each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as
whole cannot override……….Therefore in a just society the question of equal citizenship are
taken as settled, the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the
calculus of social interests”.
Rawls is of the opinion that the principle of justice provides a way of assigning rights
and duties in the basic institution of the society. These principles define the appropriate
distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation.
Rights Based on Reaction to Injustice; This concept is based on Edmund Cahn’s theory of
justice Prof. Cahn asserts that although there may be universal a priori truths concerning justice
from which one may deduce rights or norms, it is better to approach justice from its negative
rather than affirmative side. Furthermore, says Cahn, where justice is thought of in a customary
manner as an ideal mode or condition (John Rawls’s Theory), the human response would be
contemplative and contemplation bakes no loaves. But to a response to a real or imagined
instance of injustice is alive with movement and warmth, producing outrage and anger.
Therefore he concludes; “injustice ……….means the active process of remedying or preventing
what would arouse the sense of injustice”27. An examination of the instances that will be
considered as effecting an injustice thereby allows a positive formulation of injustice.
Such an approach obviously will find a response in human rights advocates who
anxious to focus public attention on the injustice of the wide variety of shocking human rights
abuses that remain prevalent.
Rights Based on Dignity; A number of rights theorists have tried to construct a comprehensive
system of human rights norms based on a value-policy oriented approach focused on the
protection of human dignity. Some religious philosophers holding dignity to the to the inherent
quality of the sacredness of human beings, believe that an entire rights system can flow from that
concept. A secular exposition of that theory is best presented by Professor McDougal, Lasswell
and Chen. The trio proceeds on the premise that demands for human rights are demands for wide
sharing in all the values upon which human rights depend and for effective participation in all
community value processes. The inter depended values, which can all fall under the rubric of
human dignity, are the demands relating to (i) respect (ii) power (iii) enlightenment (iv) well
being (v) health (vi) skill (vii) affection and (viii) rectitude. The trio assembled a huge catalogue
of demands that satisfy these eight values, as well as all the ways in which they are denigrated.
McDougal, Lasswell and Chen find a great disparity between the common demands of
people for values of human dignity and their achievement. This disparity is due to environmental
factors, such as population, resources and institutional arrangements. The ultimate goal, as they
see it, is a world community in which a democratic distribution of values is encouraged and
promoted, all available resources are utilized to the maximum and the protection of human
dignity is regarded as a paramount objective of social policy.
Rights Based on Equality of Respect and Concern; A striking aspect of modern theorists is
their pronounced effort to reconcile different theories of rights. Ronald Dworkin offers a
promising reconciliation theory between natural rights and utilitarian theories. Dworkin proceeds
from the postulate of political morality that the governments must treat all their citizens with
equal concern and respect. No basis for any valid discourse on rights and claims exists in the
absence of such a promise.
Dworkin endorses the egalitarian character of the utilitarian principle that “everybody
can count for one, nobody for more than one”28. Under this principle he believes that the state
may exercise wide interventionist function in order to advance social welfare. Beside, there
should be no place for any prejudices and discriminations against other individuals. In this way
the society protects the basic rights of the citizens with equal concern and respect as it prohibits
decisions that seem antecedently, likely to have been reached by virtue of some sort of external
pressures.
Conclusion;
Whatever the current attitudes and policies of governments, the reality of popular demands for
human rights including both greater economic justice and greater political freedom is beyond
debate, a deepening and widening concern for the promotion and protection of human rights on
all fronts, hastened by the ideal of self determination in post colonial era, is now unmistakably
woven into the fabric of the contemporary world affairs. The contemporary doctrine of human
rights has come to occupy centre-stage in geo-political affairs. The language of human rights is
understood and utilized by many peoples in very diverse circumstances. Human rights have
become indispensable to the contemporary understanding of how human beings should be treated
by one another and by national and international political bodies. Human rights are best thought
as potential moral guarantees for each human being to lead a minimally good life. The extent to
which this aspiration is not been realized represents a gross failure by the contemporary world to
institute a morally compelling order based upon human rights.

Human Rights and India;

India has taken an active part in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Dr.
Hansa Mehta, a Gandhian social worker had led the Indian delegation and had made important
contributions in the drafting of the Declaration, specially by highlighting the need for gender
equality. India is a signatory to the six core human rights covenants and is fully committed to the
rights proclaimed in the UDHR. A number of activities were organized in the country in the year
1998 to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the UDHR. India has advocated an holistic and
integrated approach that gives equal emphasis to all human rights, based on their
interdependence and reinforces the inter-relationship between democracy, development, human
rights and international cooperation for development. India hosted the Seventh Asia-Pacific
workshop on Regional Cooperation for the Protection of Human Rights organized by the office
of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in New Delhi from February6 to 18 1999.
India has adopted a rights based approach to promoting the equality of women and
evolved a multifaceted strategy that aims at their empowerment through awareness by raising the
issues such as economic independence, education, health, legal safeguards and political
participation. The objective is to enable women to overcome the disadvantages that they face and
to enable them top play an effective and equal role in society.
Eradication of child labour is one of the most important priorities of the Government of
India, which has announced that the right to free and compulsory primary education shall be
made a fundamental right and had pledged to eradicate child labour in all occupation and
industries.
 The rights of vulnerable groups have received special attention in India ever since
independence and the Constitution itself contains certain provisions for the promotion and
protection of the rights of all minorities, including certain special group of people unique to
Indian society known as the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes. The Government has itself set
up a National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and a National
Commission for Minorities, to promote and protect the rights of these vulnerable groups. Further,
a National Minorities Development and Financial Cooperation promote economic development
activities of the minorities.
National Human Rights Commission of India;
The National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) is an autonomous commission
constituted by the Government of India to protect the human rights in India under the Protection
of Human Rights Act (PHRA) of 1993. It came into being in October 1993. In terms of the
Section II of the PHRA, human rights mean “the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and
dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution and enforceable by the courts in India”29.
Composition and Functions; Under the PHRA, the National Human Rights Commission of
India is to consist of;
(a) A Chairperson who has been a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India;
(b) One member who is, or has been a judge of the Supreme Court;
(c) One member who is, or has been , the Chief Justice of a High Court in India;
(d) Two members to be appointed from amongst persons having knowledge of or practical
experience in matters relating to human rights; and
(e) The chairpersons of the National Commission for Minorities, the National Commission
for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes and the National Commission for Women, as ex-
officio Members.
As per the Chapter III of the PHRA, the following functions shall be performed by the NHRC;
(a) Inquire, suo motto or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf,
into complaint regarding violation of human rights or abetment thereof or negligence in
the prevention of such violation by a public servant.
(b) Intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights
pending before a court with the approval of such court.
(c) Visit, under intimation to the State Government any jail or any other institution under the
control of the State Government, where persons are detained or lodged for purpose of
treatment, reformation or protection to study the living condition of the inmates and make
recommendations there on.
(d) Review the safeguards provide by or the Constitution of India or any law for the time
being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their
effective implementation.
(e) Review the factors, including acts of terrorism that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights
and recommend appropriate remedial measures.
(f) Studies treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make
recommendations for their effective implementation.
(g) Undertake and promote research in the field of human rights.
(h) Spread human rights literacy among various section of society and promote awareness of
the safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications, the media,
seminars and other available means.
 (i) Encourage the efforts of non-governmental organizations and institutions working in the
field of human rights.
(j) Such other functions as it may consider necessary for the protection of human rights in
India.
Powers of the Commission; While inquiring into complaints under the Act, the Commission
shall have all the powers of the court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in
particular the following powers;
(a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath;
(b) Discovery and production of any document;
(c) Receiving evidence on affidavits.
(d) Requisitioning any public records or copy thereof from any court or office.
(e) Issuing orders for the examination of witnesses or documents.
(f) Any other matter which may be prescribed
The Commission has its own investigating staff headed by a Director General of Police for
investigation into complaints of human rights violations. Under the Act, it is open to the
Commission to utilize the services of any officer or investigation agency of the Central
government and the State Government. The Commission has associated in a number of cases
non-governmental organizations (NGO) in the investigation work.
The Commission while inquiring into complaints of violation of human rights may
call for information or report from the Central Government or any State Government or any
other agency or organization subordinate thereto within such time as may be specified by it;
provided that the information or report is not received within the time stipulated by the
Commission, it is to inquire into the complaint on its own; on the other er hand, on the receipt of
information the Commission is satisfied either hat no further inquiry is required or that the
required action has been taken by the concerned Government or authority, it may not proceed
further on the complaint and inform the complainant accordingly.
The Commission may take any of the following steps upon the completion of an
inquiry;
(a) where the inquiry discloses the Commission , of violation of human rights or negligence
in the prevention of human rights by the public servant, it may recommend to the
Government or the authority for the initiation of proceeding for prosecution or such other
action the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons;
(b) Approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for directives, orders etc. that
the court may deem necessary;
(c) Recommend the concerned government or authority for grant of such immediate relief to
the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary.
Reflections;
National human rights Commission of India’s greatest success lay in creating awareness about
the importance of the human rights in government policy and public life. As a part of its
mandate, the NHRC holds sensitization workshops periodically for senior civil servants, police
officers or judicial staffs. On various occasions , the NHRC has on its own sought reports from
state governments, on the basis of news reports or complaints on trafficking of minor girls,
conditions in remand homes for juvenile delinquents an d on police atrocities. Over the years, it
has played an interventionist role and brought succour to victims whose rights have been
trampled upon and helped people in their quest for justice- from Kashmir to areas in India’s
remote North east that have been plagued by separatist insurgencies. Whether protecting those
who are at the receiving end of violence at the hands of terrorists or questioning deaths in police
custody, NHRC has been at the forefront in guiding victims in the fight for their rights. Mary
Robinson, former President of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in
an interview in New York hailed the NHRC in the following words; “I appreciate the work done
by the National Human Rights Commission in India and I think it quite pathfinder for looking at
individual complaint. I know it handles a lot of individual complaints every year, say 80,000 or
so, which is a very substantial case load”30.
Hence, from championing the rights of mentally ill persons to seeking justice for riot
victims and ensuring equitable distribution of relief to tsunami sufferers (December 2004),
India’s National Human Rights Commission has for years given voice to voiceless.

References;
(1) As quoted in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (2004) entry on Human Rights (CD
Rom Edition).
(2) As quoted in the Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia entry on Human Rights.
Available at http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights
(3) As quoted in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Human Rights.
Available at http://www.iep.utm.edu/
(4) What are Human Rights? Available at
http://www.global.org/curriculum/amnesty.html.
(5) J.L. Macfarlane; The Theory and Practice of Human Rights, Maurice Temple
Smith, London, 1985, pp. 3-5
(6) The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2004, Op cit.
(7) Henry Shue; Basic Rights, Second Ed. 1996, Princeton, Princeton University Press
(8) Maurice Cranston; Human Rights Today, Ampersand, London, 1962. p.7
(9) Dwarkin; Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1978,
p.271.
(10) The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2004. Op. cit.
(11) Ibid.
(12) Human rights Introduction. Available on http://www.entoes.com/human_rights
(13) The Encylopaedia Britannica, 2004, Op. cit.
(14) Ibid.
(15) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available on
http://www.un.org/overview/rights.htm
(16) The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2004, op. cit.
(17) Tolley, H. The UN Commission on Human Rights, West View Press, 1987.
(18) Amnesty International; An article in the Wikipedia; the Free Encyclopedia.
Available on http://www.en-wikipedia.org?wiki/Amanesty_International
(19) Ibid.
(20) John Finnis; Natural Law and Natural Rights, 1980, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
(21) Henry Shue, op.cit.
(22) Steven Poe and Neal Tate; “Human Rights and Repression to Personal Integrity in
the 1980s: A Global Analysis”, American Political Science Review, 1996, pp. 853-
872.
(23) James Ron; “Varying Methods of State Violence”, International Organization,
1997, pp-275-300.
(24) Conway Henderson; “Conditions Affecting the Use of Political Repression”,
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1991, pp.-120-142.
(25) Carina Perelli; “The Military Perception of Threat in the Southern Zone of South
America”, The Military and Democracy, Edited by Louis Goodman et. al, 1990,
Lexington, Lexington Books, pp.-93-105.
(26) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available on
http://www.un.org/overview/rights.htm/
(27) Jerome J. Shestack, “The Philosophic Foundations of Human Rights”, Human
Rights Quarterly, Volume-20, 1998, John Hopkins University Press.
(28) Ibid.
(29) FAQ’s About the National Human Rights Commission of India. Available at
http://www.nhrc.nic.in/FAQ.htm.
(30) Robinson Hails India’s Human Rights Gains. Available at
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/06053.htm.

*************************************