[doyoulikeworms]

Well, those rights are a bit different from, say, free speech, methinks.

In my opinion, we have the right to free speech by virtue of being human. At bare minimum, one has a brain, and that brain controls one's mouth. No other human can control someone else's voice in any fashion similar to how he controls his own. To restrict someone from exercising this right requires an outside force to aggress against the speaker. Societies today more or less agree, there's little (or nothing) one can say that should justify violence against the speaker. Similar reasoning can be applied to the use of justly acquired property as a means of disseminating information. It's a promise from government: "I won't take this away from you".

The right to a trial is different. No human is born with this right, as no human pops out of the womb with a staffed courthouse in his possession. In fact, the notion of a right to trial doesn't make sense if there are no laws. It also doesn't make sense if there are no conflicts (alone on a desert island). It's also a promise from government: "I'll give you the right to contest my decisions before I use force against you". It's more like a return policy than a natural right, in my opinion.