There is no answer to a question so broadly nonspecific and therein is the problem.
Depending on who has done the depriving, who has had their rights violated, the rights purported to have been violated, and what government is that the question might refer to, the responses have varied from actively violating human rights obligations to nothing at all (denying or ignoring both being forms of complicity) to full state support to protect the human rights of a group of citizens of noncitizens via responses that can in turn range from diplomatic pressure and/or promises, sanctions, or outright declaration of war.
Though not without flaws, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and associated documents is the most thorough internationally accepted benchmark on just what are human rights and the United Nations is one of the most internationally credible forums for determining whether such violations have occurred.
However, the gold standard for judging whether a violation has occurred when an accusation has been made is simply whether the claim is true.
To that end, the question of whether or not the accuser is politically motivated or if they are even guilty of abuses themselves — even greater ones — or if the accuser is otherwise or even overwhelmingly dubious is entirely immaterial and irrelevant.
Human rights are not for convenience nor chips to trade but are rather the barest minimum standards to which all humans are entitled to inalienably and it is the obligation of all governments to guarantee them to all humans whether citizen of noncitizen and whether within its territory or without it.
16.5K viewsView upvotes
3
Related Questions (More Answers Below)