Rights and wrongs

It was to be a great and safe new future.

On the spot where, just eight years before, Adolf Hitler had been photographed staring out at the Eiffel Tower having conquered most of Europe, the world's leaders made a bold statement of intent.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by just the third General Assembly of the newly formed United Nations at Paris's Palais de Chaillot on 10 December, 1948.

Its 30 articles were supposed to provide a blueprint for how states were supposed to behave in the brave new world which was emerging from the ashes of the Second World War.

The document established fundamental principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood, enshrining the right to life, the prohibition of slavery and freedom of speech.

It demanded all countries ensured individual privacy and personal freedom to act within the law, had access to justice and outlawed arbitrary arrest or detention

Forty-eight of the then 58 members voted in favour of its adoption, with none against. The other ten either abstained or failed to vote.

Many grand words were spoken as delegates took their turn to extol the virtues of creating a code by which all nations, if they were to be genuinely united, should abide.

Among them, US secretary of state George Marshall called it "a standard of conduct for all," adding: "Let us as members of the United Nations, conscious of our own shortcomings and imperfections, join our effort in good faith to live up to this high standard."

But, the cracks were there right at the beginning.

Six of the abstainers were from the eastern bloc, and although at the time they justified the move by saying it did not go far enough in condemning fascism and Nazism, all would later be criticised for behaving in ways that were contrary to many of the declaration's articles.

South Africa's objections have to be viewed in relation to its system of apartheid. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, is understood to have been uncomfortable with Article 18, which states that everyone has a right to change their religion, and Article 16, which demands equality in marriage.

Notwithstanding the fact that dozens of countries were not signatories to the original declaration, either because they were not yet UN members, or had not yet won independence from the major colonial powers of the time.

Yet, initial backers included countries like China, Burma (Myanmar), Iran, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Venezuela and most of Central America.

The declaration went on to be the basis for a series of further international treaties that were signed into international law, governing civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights, discrimination, torture and protection for people with disabilities, migrant workers and children.

What's happening now?

While the declaration remains the cornerstone of the principles on which the UN was built, the organisation now has many more members than it did when it was drawn up, often with competing agendas.

Several non-governmental organisations which promote the importance of human rights study how well countries adhere to the treaties they have signed up to.

Many find the same countries repeatedly guilty of violating human rights or putting them at risk.

One analyst, Verisk Maplecroft, produces a quarterly index using a range of quantitative and qualitative data to assess to what extent states accept and commit to implement their human rights obligations.

It assesses countries using many of the principles set out in the original declaration, including the extent to which states uphold access to remedy, civil and political rights, human security and labour rights and protection.

The results of the latest index make depressing reading, with 22 countries falling into the "extreme risk" category.

As well as those in the ten worst, countries like Myanmar, Iran and Venezuela fall into the category of countries where human rights are at extreme risk of being breached.

Others, where human rights might be expected to be protected or improving are still well down the table.

Tap on the map below to see which category each country falls into. You can also enter the name of the country into the search bar.

Then read Sky News correspondents experiences of reporting on countries where, for some people, rights are out of reach.

In the wake of the Arab Spring in 2011, Syria was one of the countries which rose up in an attempt to remove its authoritarian regime.

The subsequent crackdown soon descended into civil war and as the various factions involved in fighting have tried to seize the initiative, there has been little room for human rights.

In its overview of the situation in Syria, Amnesty International says: "Parties to the armed conflict committed war crimes and other grave violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses with impunity.

"Government and allied forces, including Russia, carried out indiscriminate attacks and direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects using aerial and artillery bombing, including with chemical and other internationally banned weapons, killing and injuring hundreds.

"Government forces maintained lengthy sieges on densely populated areas, restricting access to humanitarian and medical aid to thousands of civilians.

"Government forces and foreign governments negotiated local agreements which led to the forced displacement of thousands of civilians following prolonged sieges and unlawful attacks."

Yemen was another country that became afflicted by war after the Arab Spring. But, while the Assad regime was able to retain control of the Syrian capital Damascus, the officially recognised Yemeni government was forced to relocate to Saudi Arabia as Houthi rebels took control of Sanaa after fierce fighting in 2015.

Since then, the country has been mired in a series of humanitarian crises, that have left much of its population in danger of malnutrition, poverty and disease.

Several countries and NGOs have criticised the involvement of a Saudi-led coalition in the war, which has resulted in civilian deaths and injuries. The coalition has also been accused of worsening the humanitarian situation by frequently blockading the port of Hodeidah.

Human Rights Watch, in its country profile, says: "The conflict between the Saudi-led coalition and Houthi forces has exacerbated the dire humanitarian situation and taken a terrible toll on Yemeni civilians.

"The coalition's scores of indiscriminate airstrikes have killed and wounded thousands of civilians in violation of the laws of war. Houthi forces have fired artillery indiscriminately into Yemeni cities and launched rockets into populated areas of Saudi Arabia.

"The Houthis, pro-government forces, and United Arab Emirates-backed forces have arbitrarily detained, abused or 'disappeared' scores."

In 2015, the first democratic election to be held in Myanmar for 25 years led to hope the country was turning its back on years of repressive military rule.

But, within months reports began to emerge of ongoing persecution of a Muslim minority people called the Rohingya.

The issue erupted into the international arena at the end of summer 2017 when hundreds of thousands of Rohingya fled from Rakhine state into neighbouring Bangladesh, escaping what many described as the systematic destruction of their homes.

Since then, as the country's rulers have failed to accept responsibility, they have continued to clamp down on dissent, and late last year jailed two Reuters journalists for covering the Rohingya crisis.

The latest report by an international fact-finding mission on Myanmar, set up by the UN Human Rights Council, found "consistent patterns of serious human rights violations and abuses in Kachin, Rakhine and Shan states, in addition to serious violations of international humanitarian law. These are principally committed by the Myanmar security forces, particularly the military. Their operations are based on policies, tactics and conduct that consistently fail to respect international law, including by deliberately targeting civilians. Many violations amount to the gravest crimes under international law".

A country which not only houses the UN, was integral to the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Right and has a constitution on which several articles in the document are drawn from, the US often holds itself up as a paragon of virtue by which other human rights violators are judged.

But with a president who uses rhetoric that describes asylum seekers as criminals, tacitly stands by as children are separated from parents who have entered the US illegally, and attempted to ban people from specific countries coming to the country, some have said it can no longer regard itself as a global defender of human rights.

Earlier this year, the US withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council, claiming the repeated violations by those members on the council made it a "mockery".

Yet, the country is ranked well below most European nations in the Verisk Maplecroft list, coming under the medium risk category, rather than the "low".

It is also a country where hundreds of people are shot dead annually by police, according to a 2015 study by the Economist.

Amnesty International says in its country report: "Executive orders to suspend travel to the USA from several Muslim-majority countries sparked legal challenges, which continued through the year.

"There were major attacks on the rights of women and girls. Eighteen detainees were transferred from the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; 41 detainees remained at the base and pre-trial military commission proceedings continued.

"Gun violence remained high. Death sentences were handed down and executions were carried out."

China, a country that purports to be communist, has an authoritarian government that permits some economic freedoms.

The risk to human rights there is not in the "extreme" category, partly because it has seen such rapid economic expansion since it began to look outward in the late 1980s, but it is high up in the list of worst offenders, and many commentators say there are signs it is getting worse.

Human Rights Watch says: "Since President Xi Jinping assumed power in 2013, the government has arbitrarily detained and prosecuted hundreds of activists and human rights lawyers and defenders.

"It has tightened control over non-governmental organisations, activists, media, and the internet through a slew of new laws that cast activism and peaceful criticism as state security threats."