SLC22-W3 / Human Rights (Human Rights)

Hello Teacher,
This is my entry to this week's teaching. I hope it serves the required purpose for which it is meant.

Source

Part I

As explained in class, say in your own words and explanations if you consider that human rights are respected or violated in your country.

My country, Nigeria, could be classified as a developing country, and one characteristic of any such classification comes with unstable enforcement of the Human Rights guidelines. Several factors have undermined the full enforcement of the human rights guidelines in my dear country.

Among these factors are the political or executives with overbearing influence, highly placed individuals who trample and intimidate, and the common who either speak up or are ignorant about their fundamental human rights.

Let's take some clear examples of these violations. Presently, we have a case of activists being intimidated and incarcerated for barely expressing their views on the corrupt nature of some judges. The state actors went as far as getting an order to ban his just-released publication. This probably is intended to instill fear in activists and journalists who are the first line of abusers.

The second line of violation.found.in my country is the right of assembly. The ENDSARS and End-Bad-Governance protests are living proofs of the complete violation of fundamental human rights in my country. There are other various forms of violations.

Say according to the laws of your country if Human Rights have the same range of value as your country's constitution, if they are supra-constitutional, or if the constitution prevails over international deals on Human Rights.

Notwithstanding some of the stated violations above, human rights laws are enshrined in my country's 1999 constitution as amended. It is a legal framework that draws its powers from Chapter IV of the Constitution. This contains as per the internationally acceptable guidelines.

No part of the constitution is treated less than the other. They all form equal parts and values. when compared. If one part could be enforceable in the courts, so be the fundamental human rights.

Since they are already part of the 1999 constitution as amended, the issue of supra-constitution does not exist. The country has been part of several international treaties,. Hence, any updated guidelines are legislated and added as a legal framework through amendments.

Part II

Mention somebody in your region who has competence in the field of Human Rights. According to your assessment, say how useful it has been and how its operation has influenced the respect of Human Rights in your country.

Growing up, I heard of a commission that later became a household name because of its continued litigation process against the state. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is. the driving force and face of human rights enforcement. This commission was created 30 years ago (1995).

Among its roles include;

1. Monitor Human rights violations. This is common as we continue to have police brutality and detention.
2. Awareness and Advocacy. If you don't know your rights, it makes it difficult to know when violated.
3. Policy Framework. NHRC is also seen to help in formulating policies that are human-friendly. During most public hearings, they are one party that represents the people.

source

You or someone close to you has been a victim of human rights violations, if so, what was the situation, and were you able to assert your rights?

Sometime last year, there was a situation that threw the neighborhood agog. A young man was shot by the police at a checkpoint because he refused to tip him, and after a heated argument, he accidentally shot the young man.

Unfortunately for this police officer, it happened that the young man was from a tribe that was influential in the state. This tribe went for a solidarity movement around the city, calling out the government to order. The state government responded for justice.

The police were tired and were found wanting before he was dismissed from public service, but he was also jailed for first-degree murder.

Part III

Case study 1:
A lady loses her son since he dies in the hands of assailants who take his life to steal his car. The assailants soon after are learned and prosecuted for the murder. You are paying a sentence provided by law. However, the lady considers that they have violated their right to life and decides to file a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The right to life is one fundamental human rrighteenshrinedin my country's constitution, and a violation of that means a violation of the law. Therefore, in this case, the vvictim'sright to life who was murdered was violated. This is a law both locally and internationally enshrined in the constitution and treaties.

However, the mother who feels her right to life has been violated is incorrect, but rather that of her son. In her case, she can only pray for the courts to enforce judgment against the son's sudden demise.

For the mother who is contacted, the human rights commissions aren't out of place. Being the mother of the victim ,. She has legal standing to make a complaint to the commission while highlighting her grievances against the government to secure lives and properties.

source

Case study 2:
A person is detained amid a protest against the government. He is beaten by police officials who kill him. The prosecutor assigned to the case initiates the investigation without being able to accurately identify the perpetrators of this murder. Several years pass, and the victim's relatives turn to the prosecution for a response, and there they tell him that the case was closed due to the fact that it took several years without being able to identify the officials who caused the death.
Say if you consider that both the victim and his relatives are violating Human Rights. Fundament your responses.

Firstly, the human rights of. the victim were violated. Just like now, everyone has The RIGHT TO LIFE. His death, despite the circumstances surrounding it, is a clear violation of his fundamental human right to live.

Second, the victim's right to freedom.was also violated. Having been tortured to death simply negates this right to freedom. This is one thing the NHRC has continued to flag; torture. Cruelty, and dehumanising or degrading treatment.

Closing the case without any justice for the family simply negates the "right to justice". No punishment for the killer, and no being accountable for the crime doesn't show justice was seen

Therefore, in this case, all party's rights were violated. The victim, whose life was taken was violated. The family as well who didn't get the required answers, truth, or justice, was also violated.

Thank you, friends.