Lets not thrive to much in the history and take on the hot irons of today like " political motivated hate crimes vs. the human rights" .( as example) You will fast knowtice on this that it comes down on how a constitution and the human rights are interpreted by those that are in power ... (hmm..) And to simpfly this thesis even more it comes down on the gap between de faco and de jure. Now to give those in power a little lol and try as 5th class citizen to closes the gap. .... ( only an example how classicism works against the human rights) Closing the gap between de facto and de jure is the main problem here in this debate, because every constitution can look good in the right light but where light is there are shadows...And if those shadows aren't looked at as well then there is danger, ( given enough of time of violations ) that you lose your constitution without knowing it. Another factor i might put on the table here is when citizens don't uses there rights because gov officials, judges and the political parties have always more right than one lone citizen... unless .. the citizen(s) in question remembers how to walk tall and devotes a large chunk of his life time to lay open this. in my personal opinion we should work on closing the gap between de facto and de jure.