HISTORY OF THE UDHR

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights emerged from the ashes of the Second World War.
With the end of the conflict, and the creation of the United Nations, the international community
vowed never again to abide the unspeakable atrocities the world had witnessed. So the leaders of
the world decided to amplify the UN Charter by enshrining and encouraging guarantees for the
rights of human beings everywhere. In 1946, as part of the preliminary work of drafting the
Declaration, under the auspices of UNESCO, Jacques Maritain assembled a Philosophers’
Committee to identify key theoretical issues in framing a charter of rights for all peoples and all
nations. The work of the Philosophers’ Committee then moved to the UN Commission on
Human Rights. At its first session in January 1947, the Commission authorized its members to
formulate what it termed “a preliminary draft international bill of human rights.” Later the work
was taken over by a formal drafting committee, consisting of members of the Commission from
eight states. The Commission on Human Rights comprised 18 members from various political,
cultural, and religious backgrounds. Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of President Franklin D.
Roosevelt, chaired the Commission. It also included René Cassin of France, who composed the
first draft of the declaration; Commission Rapporteur Charles Malik of Lebanon; Vice-
Chairman Peng Chung Chang of China; and John Humphrey of Canada, Director of the UN’s
Human Rights Division, who prepared the Declaration’s blueprint. The Commission had to
resolve issues of fundamental importance. First, it concluded that the right mission was to
develop a declaration, rather than a treaty. The Commission’s view was that the declaration
should be relatively short, inspirational, energizing, and broadly accessible to peoples
everywhere: the defining document of an international bill of human rights. It also decided that
the declaration should encompass both civil and political rights, on the one hand, and social and
economic rights, on the other. Cassin handed his draft of the declaration to a meeting of the
Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. Thus this version, which was sent to all UN Member
States for comment, became known as the “Geneva draft.” The Commission revised the
Geneva draft to reflect the replies it had received from Member States, before submitting it to the
General Assembly. The General Assembly in turn scrutinized the document between September
and December of 1948, with over 50 Member States voting a total of 1,400 times on practically
every clause and virtually every word of the text. By its resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December
1948, the General Assembly, meeting in Paris, voted to adopt the UDHR with eight nations

1  
 
  

abstaining but none dissenting. It was an historic moment, and the General Assembly called upon
all Member States to publicize the text of the Declaration and “to cause it to be disseminated,
displayed, read, and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without
distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.” The UDHR formed the basis
for two covenants which were adopted by the General Assembly in 1966: the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights. These Covenants have binding status in international law. The Declaration and
the Covenants are collectively known as the “International Bill of Human Rights.” Today,
the Universal Declaration, translated into 350 languages, is the best-known and most often cited
human rights document on Earth.

Legal status

The UDHR was originally formulated as “soft law;” it was aspirational, not legally binding.
Since its adoption, however, the UDHR has been complemented by the two covenants that are
legally binding on the nations that have signed and ratified them: the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, which came into force in 1976 and has been ratified by 168 nations;
and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which also came into
force in 1976 and has been ratified by 164 nations. Further, many provisions of the UDHR are
also now part of customary international law. There are additional conventions on particular
human rights concerns, such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the Convention on the Rights of the
Child (CRC), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The
International Bill of Human Rights is matched in many cases by the rights provisions of national
constitutions, charters, and bills of rights. Some of these, like the U.S. Bill of Rights, predate the
UDHR by decades or centuries. Others, including the constitutions of some of the newest
countries in the world, have been cast in the image of the International Bill of Human Rights,
directly or indirectly adopting ideas and formulations from these international instruments. In
this way the UDHR provides a template for national law-making, and forges a continuum
between the international protection of human rights and their protection under public law in

2  
 
  

particular countries. Such international and national instruments are complemented by regional
treaties – principally the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the American
Convention on Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights. In reality, most
of the legal work to secure human rights and vindicate them in the face of violations is conducted
under the auspices of national and regional law and practice. This will continue to be the
ordinary mode of implementation in the twenty-first century, and one of the roles of international
declarations like the UDHR and the Covenants should be to serve as a model for structuring local
constitutional and legislative arrangements.

The framers of the UDHR, led by Eleanor Roosevelt, envisaged three parts to the postwar human
rights enterprise:

a set of general principles;the codification of those principles into law; and practical means
of implementation.

Today implementation takes many forms, ranging from top down monitoring by human rights
treaty bodies and adjudication by international courts and tribunals, to capacity building in civil
society organizations and human rights education at the grass-roots level. We should recognize
that effective implementation includes not only retrospective complaint mechanisms, but also
forward-looking efforts to cultivate respect for human rights. This is reflected in the mandate of
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which is both to promote and protect
human rights. The Commission’s starting point in considering human rights implementation is
Article 28 of the UDHR, which provides that “everyone is entitled to a social and international
order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.” This
statement invites us to focus on the disparity between the world as it is, and the world we should
hope to live in. More specifically, it raises the question of why the human rights embedded in the
UDHR are far from realized today, and what more the international community can – and must –
do to make real the ideal of human rights for all.

3  
 
  

The Two Major Covenants

The split between West and East over the importance of first and second generation of human
rights, with the West favoring the first generation rights and the Soviet Union and its allies
inclined only toward the second generation rights, was very evident by the early 1950s. For that
reason, rather than try to write a binding covenant that included all the rights in the UDHR, and
rather than let the whole human rights project collapse, the decision was made to write two
covenants, one that embraced each of the two kinds of rights. John Humphrey, a former
international law professor at Canada’s McGill University and Director of the U.N. Human
Rights Division, led the drafting of both covenants. Humphrey also had written the first draft of
the UDHR. Finally, on December 19, 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) were each presented to the U.N. General Assembly and adopted. The first focused on
the “first generation” of rights that Americans know well. The second contained the “second
generation” of rights. The adoption of a covenant or convention by the U.N. General Assembly
does not automatically make it a part of international law. That only occurs when the number of
states specified in a covenant or convention have ratified it. For these two covenants, 35 states
were required before each one “entered into force.” Also, covenants, like conventions, become
law only for the states that ratify them. It took ten years, until 1976, for thirty-five states to ratify
each of the major covenants. However, as of 2015, more than 160 of the U.N.’s 193 member
states have ratified each one; 158 have ratified both. The UDHR, ICCPR and ICESCR are
together called the International Bill of Human Rights. Four features of the two covenants are
noteworthy.

First, Article 1 of each covenant begins, “All peoples have the right to self-determination.” A
right of “peoples” rather than individuals is not found in the UDHR. The concerns of new
nations, recently freed from colonial control, to protect their independence and to own their
national resources led to the inclusion of this right.

Second, under the ICCPR, many human rights may be restricted (“derogated,” in the language of
the treaties) during war or other public emergencies, but only “to the extent strictly required by
the exigencies of the situation” (Art. 4). However, the most essential rights are “non-derogable,”
and these rights may not be restricted in even the worst of circumstances. These include the right

4  
 
  

to life and the prohibitions against torture, slavery, prosecution for a crime that was not a crime
when the act was done, and the freedom of “thought, conscience and religion” (Art. 18).

Third, while the ICCPR assumes that all rights in the treaty must be honored and fulfilled
immediately, the ICESCR recognizes that many economic rights, such as the rights to education,
health care, employment and social security, are beyond the capabilities of very poor countries.
For that reason, they are to be fulfilled “to the maximum of its [a state’s] available resources,
with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights.” (Art. 2.2). Each state
party is expected to do all it can to fulfill these rights, even if it cannot fulfill them immediately
or completely.

Finally, each covenant, like most other U.N. covenants or conventions, allows for “reservations”
and “declarations.” A reservation allows a state that ratifies a treaty to say it accepts all parts of
the treaty except for specific articles. A declaration is a statement by a state that clarifies its
understanding of a provision or otherwise states its intentions regarding the convention.
Reservations and declarations are often quite substantial. Reservations and declarations are
controversial. On the one hand, they make more states willing to ratify a covenant or convention.
On the other, they reduce the force of a ratification. For example, when the United States ratified
the ICCPR, it declared that the treaty is not “self-executing.” This means that, if a nation or
individual charges that the U.S. has violated the ICCPR, Congress would still need to pass
specific legislation to allow the ICCPR to be enforced. While many believe that reservations and
declarations often reduce a state’s ratification of a covenant or convention to mere lip service, its
ratification still places the state on record as supporting the meaning and significance of the
covenant.

Optional Protocols

Most human rights covenants and conventions have been followed by “optional protocols” that
complement or add to the basic treaty. These protocols often describe how a convention is to be
enforced, describe how individuals may complain that a state has violated a treaty, or add other
provisions to the treaty. For example, the optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of
the Child prohibit the use of children under the age of 18 in armed conflict, the sale of children,

5  
 
  

child prostitution, and child pornography. Optional protocols for each covenant or convention are
ratified separately from the main treaty.

United Nations Mechanisms for Advancing and Enforcing Human Rights

The United Nations has always had a mandate to advance human rights, but its efforts to fulfill
this mandate were weak, largely blocked by the Cold War conflict between East and West. Since
the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, and particularly under the leadership of U.N.
Secretary General Kofi Annan (1997-2006), the United Nations has taken a number of steps to
strengthen its monitoring and enforcement of human rights. These include, as described in turn
below, the creation of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human
Rights Council, special appointees on human rights, the International Criminal Court, the policy
of Responsibility to Protect, Millennium Development Goals, and Sustainable Development
Goals. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights In 1993, the U.N. held a World Conference
on Human Rights in Vienna and adopted the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. The
Declaration concluded that human rights are a matter of concern for all mankind and are never a
matter of a nation’s internal jurisdiction alone. The Declaration represented a major change from
the U.N.’s earlier view that the outside world could not interfere in a nation’s internal affairs, no
matter how horrible that nation’s human rights violations. The Declaration also called for
creating a High Commissioner for Human Rights, which was done by the General Assembly
later that year. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is now the principal
United Nations office with the mandate to promote and protect human rights for all. Its work is
devoted to seeing that human rights principles and laws are implemented and followed.

Human Rights Council

Beginning in 1946, the U.N.’s Commission on Human Rights was its main body for “promoting
respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.” However, by
2004, it was clear that the Commission was failing. Its members were elected by world region,
and because regional politics often determined who was selected, some Commission members
had vile human rights records. In 2004, Zimbabwe and Sudan, perhaps the world’s worst
violators of human rights, were members. Countries with terrible human rights records often
sought seats on the Commission to shield themselves from its scrutiny. Many NGO’s, including

6  
 
  

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, another major human rights NGO, urged that
the Commission be replaced. In December 2004, Secretary-General Annan recommended that
the replacement be a much smaller Human Rights Council. Further, those aspiring to be
members should be required to present evidence of their commitment to human rights for all
U.N. members to review. The U.N. General Assembly adopted the new Human Rights Council
in March 2006 by a vote of 170 to 4. The Council improves on the Commission it replaced in
several ways. For example, the Council conducts universal periodic review of the overall human
rights records of all U.N. members, something the Commission did not do, beginning with those
elected to the Council. This review is not limited to compliance with treaties a nation has ratified.
A higher threshold for election has made it possible to defeat or block the candidacies of Belarus
(2007), Sri Lanka (2008), Azerbaijan (2009), Iran (2010), Syria (2011), and Sudan (2012).
However, China, Saudi Arabia and Libya were each elected as part of closed regional slates,
despite their bad human rights records and strong opposition from some countries and human
rights NGOs. Any Council member found to systematically violate human rights can be expelled
by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly; Libya’s membership was suspended by a General
Assembly vote in March 2011. Treaty Monitoring Bodies In addition to the Human Rights
Council, each U.N. human rights covenant and convention has its own treaty monitoring body,
consisting of elected independent experts “serving in their own capacity” rather than as
representatives of U.N. states. Parties to the conventions are required to submit regular reports on
their fulfillment of the conventions, and the monitoring bodies review these reports. Each
monitoring body also often writes general comments offering its interpretations of the
application of the convention to particular issues related to the convention it oversees. Special
Appointees With the mandate or authority of the Human Rights Council, the U.N. Secretary-
General may appoint Special Rapporteurs, Special Representatives and Advisors, to investigate
and advise on specific human rights issues, including human rights concerns in particular
countries, such as in North Korea, or on thematic issues, such as on the sale of children. The
number of rapporteurs, representatives, and advisors varies; as of December 2015 there were 37.
International Criminal Court Genocide scholar Rudolph Rummel (1994) estimated that, by 1987,
169 million had died by genocide and other government-sanctioned killings during the twentieth
century. Soldiers killed during war are not included. That estimate did not include the 800,000 to
1,000,000 who died in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. During the Cold War, the U.N. was mute in

7  
 
  

the face of repeated genocides and related atrocities, as in Indonesia (1965-66), East Pakistan
(1971), Cambodia (1975- 1979), and Kurdistan (late 1980s). With the end of the Cold War, the
U.N. finally began to respond to punish and prevent these atrocities. Beginning in 1993, the
Security Council created several special courts to prosecute those responsible for genocide,
crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. The International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia was the first, created in 1993. The International Criminal Tribunal of
Rwanda followed in 1996. Three other special courts – for Indonesia, Sierra Leone, and
Cambodia were created after 2000 for genocide and related crimes in those countries. A main
problem with these special courts is that they were created only after a genocide or mass killing
had occurred. The U.N. Security Council had to create each one after the crimes and make
arrangements for funding. Doing so required extensive preparation time and was often politically
difficult. For these reasons, the need for a permanent international criminal court seemed clear. It
was also hoped that the existence of a permanent court could help deter these horrific crimes. A
draft treaty for such a court had been written as early as 1951, but the Cold War halted all efforts
to create it. Finally, after the Cold War had ended, U.N. members met in Rome in July 1998 and
adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court by a vote of 120 yes, 7 no, with 21
abstentions. Unlike most conventions, the Rome Statute states, “No reservations may be made to
this Statute” (Art. 120), so any State ratifying the Rome Statute must accept all of its provisions.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) started operating on July 1, 2002, after the required 60
states had ratified the treaty. It is charged with investigating and prosecuting the four crimes of
genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression (although it does not yet have
authority over the crime of aggression).

The Regional Human Rights Systems

After the UDHR was adopted, three regional systems for advancing and protecting human rights
were created. The first and most successful to date is that in Europe. The Council of Europe
adopted the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms in 1950, and all 47 countries of Europe are members. The European Court of
Human Rights was created in 1959. Because the European Convention only covers civil and
political rights, the European Social Charter was added in 1961 to cover economic and social
rights.

8  
 
  

The Organization of American States adopted the American Convention on Human Rights in
1969 and established the Inter-American Court on Human Rights in 1979. 37 States are now
parties of the Court.

The Organization of African Unity (now the African Union)

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights was adopted by the Organization of African
Unity (now the African Union) in 1981 and has been ratified by all African states except for the
new state of South Sudan. An African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights was created in 2004
and has now been ratified by 29 of the 54 African states. While the Court at first seemed very
weak, it has recently begun making important rulings. The Court may now become a positive
force for African human rights. Two other regional organizations have taken significant steps
regarding human rights since 2000, but do not yet have enforcement systems.

The League of Arab States adopted the Arab Charter of Human Rights in 2004, updating an
earlier version from 1994, and it entered into force in 2008.

Also, the ten countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) adopted the
ASEAN Human Rights Declaration in November 2012.

Human Rights Bodies’ Functions

One can think of the different mechanisms for the protection of human rights as overlapping
umbrellas of distinct sizes, positioned around the globe. The different umbrellas are made up of
the courts and monitoring bodies of the following universal and regional human rights systems:
§ United Nations
§ UN Human Rights Council
§ human rights treaty bodies
§ independent experts known as “special procedures“
§ Universal Periodic Review
§ Africa
§ African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
§ African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
§ the Americas
§ Inter-American Court of Human Rights

9  
 
  

§ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

§ Europe
§ European Court of Human Rights
§ European Committee of Social Rights
§ Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
§ the Middle East & North Africa
§ Arab Human Rights Committee
§ Southeast Asia
§ ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights
These human rights bodies each have different functions and jurisdiction. In general, these
mechanisms’ responsibilities may include: deciding complaints against States, engaging in
independent monitoring through country visits and reporting, and reviewing States’ reports on
their own compliance with human rights standards.
In addition, other intergovernmental or political bodies engage in standard-setting, inter-State
dialogue, monitoring, or promotion of human rights; such bodies include the UN Human Rights
Council, ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, and the Commission on the
Status of Women.

National Human Rights Commission

§ NHRC of India is an independent statutory body established on 12 October, 1993 as per

provisions of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, later amended in 2006.

§ NHRC has celebrated its Silver Jubilee (25 years) on October 12, 2018. Its headquarter is
located in New Delhi.

§ It is the watchdog of human rights in the country, i.e. the rights related to life, liberty, equality
and dignity of the individual guaranteed by Indian Constitution or embodied in the
international covenants and enforceable by courts in India.

§ It was established in conformity with the Paris Principles, adopted for the promotion and
protection of human rights in Paris (October, 1991) and endorsed by the General Assembly of
the United Nations on 20 December, 1993.

10  
 
  

Background

§ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948.

§ It is a milestone declaration in the history of human rights which sets out, for the first time,
fundamental human rights to be universally protected.

§ Human Rights Day is observed every year on 10 December, which is the anniversary of the
UDHR. In 2018, Human Rights Day marked the 70th anniversary the declaration.

§ In due time the growing importance of strengthening national human rights institutions has
been recognized and in 1991, a UN meeting in Paris has developed a detailed set of principles
i.e. Paris Principles. These principles became the foundation for the establishment and
operation of national human rights institutions.

§ In pursuant to these principles, India has enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993, with a view to bring about greater accountability and strengthening of the human rights
in the country.

§ This act also authorized State Governments to establish State Human Right Commission.

The Human Rights Council

Ø The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body created by the United Nations
General Assembly resolution on 15 March 2006.
Ø It has replaced the former United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
Ø It is responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around
the globe and for addressing situations of human rights violations and make
recommendations on them.
Ø It has the ability to discuss all thematic human rights issues and situations that require its
attention throughout the year. It meets at the UN Office at Geneva.
Ø The Council is made up of 47 United Nations Member States which are elected by the
UN General Assembly.

11  
 
  

Structure of the Commission

§ NHRC is a multi-member body which consists of a Chairman (Justice H.L Dattu) and seven
other members. Out of the seven members, three are ex-officio member.

§ President appoints the Chairman and members of NHRC on recommendation of high-powered

committee headed by Prime Minister.

§ The Chairperson and the members of the NHRC are appointed for 5 years or till the age of 70
years, whichever is earlier.

§ They can be removed only on the charges of proved misbehavior or incapacity, if proved by an
inquiry conducted by a Supreme Court Judge.

§ Commission also has five Specialized Divisions i.e. Law Division, Investigation Division,
Policy Research & Programmes Division, Training Division and Administration Division.

§ The chairman and the members of State Commission are appointed by the Governor in
consultation with the Chief Minister, Home Minister, Speaker of Legislative Assembly and
Leader of the Opposition in the State Legislative Assembly.

Functions and Powers of NHRC

§ NHRC investigates grievances regarding the violation of human rights either suo moto or after
receiving a petition.

12  
 
  

§ It has the power to interfere in any judicial proceedings involving any allegation of violation of
human rights.

§ It can visit any jail or any other institution under the control of the State Government to see the
living conditions of the inmates and to make recommendations thereon.

§ It can review the safeguards provided under the constitution or any law for the protection of the
human rights and can recommend appropriate remedial measures.

§ NHRC undertakes and promotes research in the field of human rights.

§ NHRC works to spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promotes
awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications,
media, seminars and other means.

§ The Commission takes an independent stand while providing opinions for the protection of
human rights within the parlance of the Constitution or in law for the time being enforced.

§ It has the powers of a civil court and can grant interim relief.

§ It also has the authority to recommend payment of compensation or damages.

§ NHRC credibility is duly reflected in large number of complaints received every year and the
trust reposed in it by the citizens.

§ It can recommend to both the central and state governments to take suitable steps to prevent the
violation of Human Rights. It submits its annual report to the President of India who causes it
to be laid before each House of Parliament.

Limitations of NHRC

§ NHRC does not have any mechanism of investigation. In majority cases, it asks the concerned
Central and State Governments to investigate the cases of the violation of Human Rights

§ It has been termed as ‘India’s teasing illusion’ by Soli Sorabjee (former Attorney-General of
India) due to its incapacity to render any practical relief to the aggrieved party.

§ NHRC can only make recommendations, without the power to enforce decisions.

§ Many times NHRC is viewed as post-retirement destinations for judges and bureaucrats with
political affiliation moreover, inadequacy of funds also hamper its working.

13  
 
  

§ A large number of grievances go unaddressed because NHRC cannot investigate the complaint
registered after one year of incident.

§ Government often out rightly rejects recommendation of NHRC or there is partial compliance
to these recommendations.

§ State human rights commissions cannot call for information from the national government,
which means that they are implicitly denied the power to investigate armed forces under
national control.

§ National Human Rights Commission powers related to violations of human rights by the armed
forces have been largely restricted.

Relationship Between International Humanitarian Law, Human Rights Law And ICL

International criminal law is related to other areas of international law, including humanitarian
law and human rights law. Indeed, both international humanitarian law and human rights law
helped develop ICL and continue to contribute to its interpretation and application (and the
reverse is also true). The major distinction between international criminal law and these other
bodies of law is the fact that ICL deals with individual criminal responsibility for violations of
international law. Conversely, humanitarian or human rights laws primarily focus on the actions
and obligations of states, governments or parties to a conflict. International human rights law and
humanitarian law are also related to each other. For example, the International Court of Justice
has held that: [T]he protection offered by human rights conventions does not cease in case of
armed conflict, save through the effect of provisions for derogation of the kind to be found in
Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The laws and customs of
war, or international humanitarian law, were created to protect citizens during armed conflicts.
Under ICL, many violations of international humanitarian law are now considered war crimes.
However, the two bodies of law have distinct modes of interpretation and application, and while
international humanitarian law can be useful in interpreting ICL, the two should not be conflated.
In particular, international humanitarian law is broader than ICL—not all violations of
international humanitarian law constitute war crimes. In addition, not all international
humanitarian law treaties criminalise violations, although the violations may be classified as war
crimes through customary law. Moreover, international humanitarian law is primarily addressed

14  
 
  

to states and parties to conflicts. International criminal law, on the other hand, is addressed to
individuals, involves only the most serious crimes and violations can result in criminal liability
and penalties such as imprisonment. International human rights law is designed to protect the
basic rights and freedoms of all persons and is based primarily on treaty law. To a large degree,
international criminal law developed as a response to mass violations of human rights by states
against citizens and persons within their territory. The prosecution of genocide and crimes
against humanity developed from human rights standards. Indeed, human rights law influenced
the drafting of the statutes of international criminal tribunals and judges at these courts have used
human rights law to interpret substantive international criminal laws and procedures. However,
international human rights obligations are primarily imposed upon states—not individuals. States
must decide for themselves how to enforce human rights obligations and deal with human rights
violations by state agents. Moreover, not all human rights are protected by international criminal
law. International criminal law can be seen as an alternative to when states do not abide by their
human rights [Link] section deals with complex and important issues, and is only
meant to give an overview of the topic. The general approach by international courts is to
harmonise these branches of international law and ensure the widest protection for civilians.

*****

15