Human Rights Complaint Form and Guide PDF Alberta Human Rights

Every state has human rights commission page. If you go to their website you will find a complaint box. There you can submit your complaint. There will be email id also. If you want to write to email you can do so.If you want to write to national human rights commission you can do so too.

A2A:Any victim himself/herself can file an application by person or by post. There is no particular procedure to file a Complaint before SHRC. Whenever and wherever, there is violation of Human Rights or exploitation of Human Being, they can inform the State Human Rights Commission within the prescribed time period.The matter or alleged incident of human rights violation cannot be pending before any Court in the territory of India, which has a requisite Jurisdiction over the matter. Though, where there is some delay in the execution of the matter, any person can complaint the Commission with regard to such undue delay.The power of the State Human Rights Commission is to give Order to respective Government to have a policy for requisite execution of the matter or the investigation of the matter by itself only, in this situation, the SHRC will submit its report to the State Government for the quick elimination of the restitution.Furthermore, the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) will not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed.Thus, the SHRC has jurisdiction to recommend compensation as the SHRC may consider necessary. The power of the SHRC under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is not initiated by any other provisions or any State Legislature or subordinate legislation. The power of the SHRC under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is in addition to any other provisions covering the subject matter and not in derogation of any other provisions of law.As far as submission of proof is concerned, the proof has to be submitted along with complaint in documentary or electronic form for purpose of inquiry by the SHRC.Format for complaint could be something like this:The complaint against any Public Servant is required to be addressed to the Chairperson/Secretary of the Commission and should mention the following details:The Complainant's full name;Postal address of the complainant and his mobile or landline number;Date, time & place of the incident;Specify details of violation of Human Rights;Complaint against which Public Servant/Government Department/ Government Organization /Government Authority / Local Self Governments;Whether the matter is pending in any Court, National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, Tribunals or any other Statutory ForumsRelief prayed for.Mobile Number or Telephone Number or Email (if any)On receipt of your complaint the Commission (i.e.) SHRC may ask for further information and affidavits to be filed in support of allegations whenever considered necessary.PS: I am not a Lawyer or a Law Student. I answer questions on Quora in public interest.

While seconding Mark Hughes’ answer, I would like to add a caveat. Carter was the Cold-War-time President and at that time the political expediency of keeping an upper hand in confrontation with the USSR was prevailing over the moral judgment - as in “SOB but our SOB”. So he did not have much room for maneuvering or sticking to moral absolutes. He indeed had a very limited choice. While currently such a stark, black and white limited choice is supposed to be gone, the reality is that in many a current conflict situation there is no good choice, in terms of human rights, between the belligerents in the conflict.  While Gaddafi was bad, quite a few of those who rebelled against him were no paragons whatsoever of human rights. While Mubarrak was bad, the new President of Egypt Morsi does not look very promising once you have looked at the 2007 political platform of Moslem Brotherhood. While Bashar Asad is undoubtedly evil, many of those fighting against him are doing it under the banner of establishing the Shariah’s law that does not look very promising from the standpoint of human rights.   This is the unfortunate reality: most situations now are where both choices are bad in terns of human rights. One of the few ones where you can make such an absolute choice is probably Myanmar. And since the US – bound by its stance as the one and only superpower (in contrast, say, to Scandinavian counties) – has to be involved in each and every conflict around the globe, it would be by necessity making moral compromises in terms of human rights. So, let’s give Jimmy Carter a little break. Do you know many former Presidents who are going around building homes for dispossessed?P.S. I might be biased because I was witnessing first hand his negotiating a cease fire in December 1994 in Sarajevo. He demonstrated courage, superior negotiating acumen, dedication and compassion. The ceasefire collapsed nevertheless but of no fault of his.P.P.S. While I would agree that the US record in human rights is not at all as stellar as the one of Scandinavians, I would rather not call it “shameful” – lets’ keep “shameful” for China, Saudi Arabia and such. Yes, US looked the other way when Pinochet was doing things to Chileans. But it also pressed USSR to let the dissidents and Jews go – which was no small thing. I would rather label the US human rights record as “patchy”. I believe such a qualifier would stand once you compare it with the one of any major Western country - UK, France, etc.

Rights are either natural rights or statutory rights. Natural rights are a part of nature (humans did not invent them) and all people have natural rights. Jefferson called the rights to life and liberty unalienable rights because government may not violate them.It was John Locke who proposed the notion of natural rights. But not all moral philosophers think there are natural rights. Alasdair MacIntyre, writing in “After Virtue” states: “For the truth is plain: there are no natural rights and belief in them is one with belief in witches and in unicorns.” It is a good argument because Locke lived in the 17th century when people did believe in witches.Statutory rights arise when humans pass laws giving people a right. Statutory rights are either positive or negative. The rights in the Bill of Rights are negative rights because they prevent Congress from passing laws that violate rights. But statutory rights are not absolute (they are not unalienable). The Supreme Court ruled that speech that represents a clear and present danger can be suppressed. Amendment 1 does not protect falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater because doing so will cause death and injury when people stampeded to the exits. Airport screening prevents all persons boarding airplanes from carrying guns onto airplanes.The right to vote is a positive right. It is not unalienable because only citizens have the right to vote and convicted felons lose their right to vote while incarcerated. Convicted felons also lose the right to bear arms.A right to health care is a positive right. All US citizens who are at least 65 have the right to get Medicare benefits.There is no relation between rights and the environment, other than to say that natural rights, since they are a part of nature, must also be part of the environment because the environment is part of nature.

Assuming so like everyone else in the world (except China and North Korea Iran etc) he condemns it. But he right now is in a unique position to finally have peace on the Korean Peninsula and he wouldn’t want to say anything to make Kim Jong Un upset at him