The Universal Declaration of Human Rights expresses fundamental rights and freedoms for all. The UNITED Nations General Assembly adopted the declaration on 10 December 1948. The Organization of American States (OAS) is an international organization based in Washington, D.C. Its members are The 35 independent nation-states of America. The application of international human rights law is the responsibility of the nation-state; It is the primary responsibility of the State to make the human rights of its citizens a reality. He explains that human rights are universal — to be valued by everyone, no matter who they are or where they live. It represents the universal recognition that fundamental rights and freedoms are inherent to all human beings, inalienable and applicable to all in the same way, and that each of us is born free and equal in dignity and rights. Regardless of our nationality, place of residence, gender, national or ethnic origin, skin colour, religion, language or any other status, the international community pledged on 10 December 1948 to preserve dignity and justice for all of us. The international human rights movement was strengthened when the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (URSDH) on 10 December 1948.
The declaration, formulated as a “common performance criterion for all peoples and nations,” establishes for the first time in human history the fundamental civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that all human beings should enjoy. Over time, it has been widely accepted as the fundamental standards of human rights that everyone should respect and protect. Together with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two optional protocols, the UDHR, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on Human Rights is formed. The relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law is controversial among scholars of international law. This debate is part of a wider debate on the fragmentation of international law.  While pluralist scholars delineate international human rights law as an international humanitarian law, proponents of the constitutional approach see it as a subset of the former.  In short, those who prefer separate, closed plans point to differences in applicability; international humanitarian law applies only in times of armed conflict.