[kijin]

The reason government actions are often prioritized is that 1) governments have the power to violate human rights more deliberately, systematically, and effectively than most ordinary people, and 2) most people are utterly incapable of defending themselves against governments.

A random thug can violate your rights as much as a government can, but he's probably not doing it systematically, and it's usually much easier for you to protect yourself from his actions. A shotgun will keep random thugs away from your home, but it will do nothing to deter a SWAT team.

Human rights were designed to prevent systematic abuses that victims cannot possibly protect themselves from, such as Hitler's persecution of ethnic minorities. The UDHR of 1948 was a direct response to the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany. The framework of human rights was never intended to protect ordinary people from one another: that's what the police is for.

[Sorgam]

If it's only systematic abuses, then the rogue police torturings in Brazil that the article described would count as "crime" and not be human rights violations. I think it's a grey area between the government allowing it to happen and actively doing it. Is a policeman breaking his rules really worse than a powerful gang? The latter may do more systematic harm and be more inescapable.

[danbruc]

If you violate national law, it is a crime, otherwise it is a human rights violation. If you violate national law but the law is not enforced, you end up in the grey area. I this case I would say if the state actively looks away it is a human rights violation, if the state is just overwhelmed it remains a crime. This of course again leaves a smaller gray are around looking away because you are overwhelmed.

[kijin]

The police represent the government, and everything the government does is assumed to be systematic. So it's a human rights violation, unless you can prove that it really was the isolated behavior of a rogue police officer.