Assertion: Human rights violations are dealt with by the state in which they occur. Reasoning: In some cases, any state may take action against such crimes, regardless of whether they occurred in their jurisdiction or not.

Both Assertion (A) and reasoning (R) are correct and R is the correct explanation of A. Both Assertion (A) and reasoning (R) are correct and but R is not the correct explanation of A. Assertion (A) is true but Reasoning (R) is not correct. Assertion (A) is not true but Reasoning (R) is correct.

Both Assertion (A) and reasoning (R) are correct and but R is not the correct explanation of A.

Generally human rights violations are dealt with by the state in which they occur. However, there are certain human rights, established under treaty that may constitute ergaomnes obligations for the state parties. This means that there are some violations that are so grave, that any state may take action against such crimes, regardless of whether they occurred in their jurisdiction or not. All states have a shared interest in elimination of such grave violations. This is one of the most empowering features of international human rights law where it does away with the borders and limitations of a domestic body and allows the international community to also seek an active role to protect the rights of citizens of other countries