Appendix A: Notes on Preparation of the Country Reports and Explanatory Notes
[…] Explanatory Notes
In many cases, the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices state that a country “generally respected” the rights of its citizens. The phrase “generally respected” is used because the protection and promotion of human rights is a dynamic endeavor; it cannot accurately be stated that any government fully respected these rights all the time without qualification, in even the best of circumstances. Accordingly, “generally respected” is the standard phrase used to describe all countries that attempt to protect human rights in the fullest sense, and is thus the highest level of respect for human rights assigned by this report.
In some instances, this year’s Country Reports use the word “Islamist,” which should be interpreted by readers as a Muslim who supports Islamic values and beliefs as the basis for political and social life. […]
Interesting wording that… “A Muslim who supports Islamic values”…
What would they call a Christian who follows Christian values, or a Hindu who follows Hindu values… ?
Again, the clarification on the usage of “generally respected” is a misnomer to say the least… especially when they say that generally respected is “the standard phrase used to describe all countries that attempt to protect human rights in the fullest sense, and is thus the highest level of respect for human rights assigned”.
To put it simply: the idea is there, but the implementation isn’t… 😉
Oh! And by the way, the report summarises that the Indian “Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, numerous serious problems remained“. As regards Pakistan, the report says the Pakistan Government’s “human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained“.
The commonality between the two? “Serious Problems Remain” … !