From the Ten Commandments to the Rights of Man

Rene Cassin

From the very day that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations, on December 10, 1948, the world could not help but compare it to the Ten Commandments. Happily, the relationship between the two has generally been confirmed. On the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration in 1968, numerous studies on its origin and its impact were published, and once again links with the Ten Commandments were evoked. It seems, however, that so far there have been more bold assertions among them than careful examinations. The jubilee of a great Israeli jurist, Haim Cohn, who has consecrated an important part of his full career to the problems of Human Rights can serve as a suitable occasion for one of the artisans of the Declaration to present his contribution to this subject.

At the outset, a preliminary clarification as to the immediate origins of the Declaration is in order. For during the preparatory phases of the work of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights then at its inception, and particularly in the collection of Declarations and constitutions carefully assembled in 1947 by the staff of the U.N. General Secretariat's Social and Economic Division, there was no mention of or reference to such monuments of the ancient religious history as the Ten Commandments. Only modern juridical instruments of a national character were alluded to, in connection with each Right of Man likely to be included in the future "International Declaration." Moreover, in one of the first articles of the first draft of the Declaration which my colleagues of the Working Group of the Commission had assigned to me to write at the beginning of June 1947, I had expressly made mention of the Duties of man and attempted to state the principal ones in a concise -not too perfect--sentence, But at the initial study of that draft, which was to serve as the basis for discussion, the idea of reasserting the duties of man at the threshold of the Declaration, in a general and direct form, met with objections from important members of the Commission, known either for their liberal or for their religious convictions, and foremost among them, the President of the Commission, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt.

Thoroughly influenced as she was by the knowledge of both the American (1778) and the French (1789) Declarations of Human Rights which pass in silence over the duties, and dearly attached as she was to the principles of individual liberty which had just achieved the upper hand at such cost over the racial and totalitarian doctrines of Hitlerism and Fascism, Mrs. Roosevelt objected vehemently to the idea of setting forth anything but the rights of man. Animated by the same spirit, she successfully argued in favor of starting off each article of the new Declaration with the word "Man," endowed with the particular Right mentioned in that article.

The prevailing formula, as we know, reads: "Each person has the right ..." or "Everyone has the right ..." At the end of that discussion, in which the Commission's delegates from the relevant countries maintained a more reserved attitude, it was accepted that the examination of the problem of mentioning the duties of man would be taken up again, when the enumeration of the rights had been completed. And so it was. The spirit prevailing during the preparation of the Universal Declaration was completely at variance with any intention of drawing deliberate and direct inspiration from the Ten Commandments.

This fact leads to a number of important conclusions. First of all, if any relationship between the universal Declaration and more generally the place of the rights of man in the modern world on the one hand, and the Decalogue as the first formulation of man's basic duties on the other hand does exist, this relation is not a formal one. Nevertheless, its reality is evident and must be traced back to the earliest periods of ancient history, when man, standing erect, mastering fire, and enjoying the benefits of written language, became aware of his innate dignity.

The expression: "God created Man in his own Image" characterizes both that prise de conscience and the religious form which it adopted initially. Secularization followed. The dignity of man has been reaffirmed by philosophers, sociologists, and statesmen regardless of religious beliefs, and has been detached from religious credos or cults. What is incontestable is the permanence of the idea through the centuries and despite the most profound divergences of interpretation of the doctrine.

The first article of the Declaration--for the sake of achieving unanimity does not contain the affirmation of the "divine origin of man," which several delegations would have wished to insert. It does proclaim, however, that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights. They are endowed with reason and with conscience, and should act towards each other- in a spirit of brotherhood." Thus, though man is mortal and civilizations come and go, from Biblical times to our days, there has been a fixed pivot for the thoughts of all generations and for men of all continents: the equal dignity inherent in the human personality.

The Decalogue, one of the most ancient documents of Israel's tradition, is essentially religious and monotheistic in its first commandments, and subsequently lays down principles of morals and justice. The first commandment states the monotheistic principle: "I am the Lord thy God ... Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."* The Decalogue then dictates to man rules of conduct, some positive ("Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy...," "Honour thy father and thy mother...") and some negative ("Thou shalt not murder," "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not bear false witness," "Thou shalt not covet...") Although we can infer from these commandments that other human beings (ordinary men, parents, spouses, servants, property-owners, etc.) must be respected, there is no direct formulation in the Decalogue of a correlative prerogative, or of any subjective right. It is only "duty" which the legislator of Israel stresses in man's relationship to man.

Formulations of this style are by no means limited to the Decalogue—we find them further in Leviticus XIX: 18: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself..." and :33 "The stranger that sojourneth with you... thou shalt love him as thyself...." Later, Isaiah expresses himself in similar manner: "Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow" (Isaiah 1:17).

The monotheistic creed of the Jewish people, epitomized in the idea of one God, father of all men, and strengthened by the bitter memories of slavery in Egypt, inspired in them rather early a vivid repugnance to serfdom. To them, that institution is neither natural, nor just (Job XXXI: 15); Jeremiah considers outrageous the curtailment of the liberty of the Hebrew servant (XXXIV: 13 to 16); the law of the jubilee and of the seventh year prescribes the release of every Hebrew slave. As to the heathen slave, he is to be dealt with in kindness; his manumission is to be favored. A person from abroad seeking refuge in Israel, is not to be returned to his former master, and is to enjoy the right of asylum.

The fact that all men were considered sons of the same father, implied that they were equal in the Covenant of the people with its God: "Ye are standing this day all of you before the Lord your God: your heads, your tribes, your elders, and your officers, even all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in the midst of thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water" (Deuteronomy XXIX: 9-10). It is true that history reveals that precepts of the Torah and of the Prophets are not always observed. The latter frequently denounce the violation of those precepts. One of the last Prophets, Ezekiel, proclaims human responsibility for what has resulted from man's abuse of his own liberty. But the great potential for human action offered by the Bible and the institutions of the nation of Israel cannot be underestimated.

* * *

At approximately the same period in history, Buddhism, in India, teaches men respect for life and condemnation of violence. Chinese civilization exalts civic responsibility and altruism, and elaborates upon the duties of the citizen as well as the duties of man. On the shores of the Mediterranean, polytheism flourished. The fact that the worship of a multitude of gods does not embody the same degree of moral principle as expressed in the Bible, will surprise nobody. It was the monarchs of great empires who strove to dictate the conduct of men. In Babylonia, it was Hammourabi who authored a famous code of laws--a very demanding one at that--which aimed at justice. In Egypt, the Book of the Dead attributed an examination of conscience, based on the ideal of moral perfection, to the soul of a King of the XVIIIth dynasty, appearing before Osiris.

Nowhere more than among the Greeks, founders of both the exact and the political sciences, was the spirit of independence expressed as loftily: Sophocles' Antigene, and the words of Socrates condemned to die, have come down through history and are as timely today as in their own time. However, freedom is restricted to certain men, and Aristotle, the great genius, considers the distinction between free men and those doomed by nature to slavery to be self-evident.

In Rome, similarly, an elite of thinkers (Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, etc....) formulated exalted principles. Roman jurists elaborated a code of law that was never matched. The Roman Empire, nevertheless, carried on its expansion by fierce conquests--even to the point of total destruction of any adversary who resisted and of his civilization as well. Gaul is one illustration. At the eastern end of the Mediterranean, the destruction of the State (Kingdom) of Israel and the dispersion of its population constitute an even more perfect example.

At that particular moment in history, Christianity had already come into being. During the period of its early expansion, it was intended to combat its violent and barbarian surroundings. Basing himself on the need for purity and altruism already expressed in the Bible and evident before the birth of Christ, Saint Paul draws from the teachings of Jesus and from his torture a dynamic force for the promotion of brotherly love and universal fraternity: there is to be no more distinction between Jew and Gentile, between free men and slaves. All form one large family, the human family. All men, whatever their earthly state, are equal before God. Christianity is first and foremost a religion of redemption: to gain redemption for his soul, man must strive to be worthy thereof by his acts, by fulfilling his duty to God, to his fellow- men and to himself. Far from mentioning the rights of the individual, the sole concern is to prepare on earth for a good death.

Ominous events, in the form of barbarian invasions into christianized societies, brought in their wake such unheard-of troubles that the Bishops and other heads of the Clergy were drawn into temporal activities to ensure the security, not only of individual co-religionists, but of the cities. The Church has entered the realm of the Temporal. In the IVth century, under Constantine, it even becomes the official religion. In addition, progressively, the chiefs of the barbarian invaders and their troops are converted (Clovis, et al.) and the emperors are taken under its protection (Charlemagne, et al.), and thus its authority is consolidated, step by step.

From that point on, and for several ensuing centuries, the Church functions on two planes. As a Christian institution, the Church shows its belief in the idea of the equality of all before God and carries out forceful activities in the realm of charity--acts of spontaneous, voluntary giving, leading to the purification of the one who offers his heart or his property, and preparing him for a good death. Within this conception, the one who helps the sick, the old, the infirm, the poor, or who creates a foundation for their benefit, has acquitted himself of his duty towards them, with no correlative right on them. This is opposed to the situation created in a modern system of social security, and opposed, too, to the Jewish concept of Tsedek. The Church very soon takes charge of the education of the young, instils them with the precepts of religion, and prepares them for future leadership cooperating with monarchs or acting independently in this mission.

The other aspect of the Church's policy was to deal with sovereigns and temporal lords on an equal footing or rather, from a superior position, to stimulate the obedience of their subjects, to influence by suggestion or sometimes by arbitration (the truces of God, etc.) in the political sphere of war and peace. This type of action leads the Church to a serious disregard of man's fundamental aspiration to freedom. In this guise, beyond the original apostolic aim, the Inquisition shows the sad picture of an institution that censures all writings with severity, and converts by forceful baptism under the menace of death by fire, exile and persecution, and participates in crusades and conquests. Even after losing his supremacy over Chiefs of State, the Pope remains for several centuries a temporal sovereign, and does not forsake subjection of a political character.

* * *

The awakening of human aspirations to emancipation—restrained by oppression or by virtue of obedient resignation—manifests itself as early as the XIth century. Aside from the peasant revolts, it starts with the emancipation of the mercantile cities, weary of heavy feudal or episcopal tutelage, and proceeds to the nobility in opposition to royal arbitrariness. The Magna Carta in England dates from 1215, and the habeas corpus follows. Some monarchs promulgate charters, granting their subjects guarantees for their corporal freedom.

But it is the Reformation and the Renaissance which inaugurate a new era, in the XVth, and XVIth centuries. The former restores the right to read the Bible and proclaims, on the religious plane, freedom of conscience and thought, and succeeds in making these ideas triumph in a number of countries. Nearly simultaneously, the Renaissance championed the freedom of intellectual, scientific and artistic creation. Galileo is one of its symbols. In the XVIIth century man's aspiration to political freedom manifests itself in the toppling of kings and the declarations of rights in England. Both there and in France, political philosophers exert much influence. The American Declaration of In- dependence gives the final consecration to the ideal of the juridical autonomy of the individual in his relation to the monarch or to the State, even if it is a republic.

The French Revolution marked the crowning point in this return of man to a minimum of freedom. In the summer of 1789, the famous Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen proclaimed to the world universal principles asserting rights. Their explosive force spread to other countries of Europe, Latin America and even Africa and Asia. Russia of the Czars remained untouched; this temporary immunity may not have been without influence on the form and character of the Russian Revolution of 1917.

The slogan of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" was one of the characteristic symbols of this upheaval. But it was the official abolition of slavery—even temporarily—which characterized most distinctively the impact of the Revolution's principles. For during thousands of years that institution was fostered by economic conditions, prior to what is known as the industrial revolution. Regardless of attempts to temper it, it constituted the most flagrant negation of the personality inherent in every human being, and existed in defiance of all moral condemnations leveled at it. Never was the slave-trade from Africa to the New World as intense as during the XVIIIth century. Even now, after nearly two centuries of international agreements and even civil wars, the scourge of slavery has not yet been completely eradicated, and, unfortunately, millions of human beings—men, women and children—are literally still slaves, reduced to the condition of objects, or merchandise, or subjected to a regime very much like slavery. Nevertheless the formulation of the principle that men are free and by law are equal by their very essence, made the French Revolution one of the major turning points in human history.

The history of Human Rights in the century following the 1789 Declaration has been recorded frequently. They developed in two directions: extension to more people, and inclusion of more rights and freedoms conceived as fundamental.

To begin with the extension to more human beings: Abbe Gregoire; who played such a considerable role in the Declaration of 1789 and the emancipation of black slaves, in 1791 also succeeded in obtaining the declaration that Jews were citizens with equal rights. Inspired by the same spirit, in 1860 seven French Jewish citizens founded the "Alliance Israelite Universelle" with the aim of extending to all Jews the Rights of Man. Among other things, they were responsible for the provision in the Treaty of Berlin (in 1878) whereby the newly-recognized independent Balkan States, were to confer the nationality of the state, and legal equality with their other nationals, upon Jews in their respective countries.

As to the list of the rights and freedoms of man, we know that in France itself the Declaration Montagnarde of 1793 modified in a restrictive sense the sacred character of private property, and thereby multiplied the consequences of the principle of equality. In the following century, and right up to the second world war, the movement of expansion continued. Rights of workmen, the right to education, the right to social solidarity for protection against the risks of life, the right of individuals to life itself, all these became in France subjects for legislative action or projects; on the other hand, in a growing number of cases the law began to put a stop to abuses of property and of contracts, in order to protect the poor and the weak against the more severe cases of exploitation committed in the names of contractual freedom.

In recent constitutions of Latin American states, a powerful, though limited movement in favor of social justice has become sanctioned in more and more explicit and precise terms. But in the U.S.S.R. Constitution of 1920, and later in 1937, the rights of man as an individual were dealt with in the framework of a system, and were expressed in a new form, corresponding to Marxist doctrines, opposing individual ownership of the means of production, and putting the rights of man under the protection of socialist legalism. The birth of I.L.O. in 1919 has resulted in the organized protection of the workers without hindering the principle of free competition. ·

As to the Catholic Church, the Syllabus of Pope Plus IX violently objected to the Declaration of Human Rights of 1789. But even before the beginning of the XXth century the Popes came out in favor of legal protection for workers--while remaining true to the principles of private property and the rights of the employers. In 1893, Leo XIII published his famous Encyclical on the rights of workers. His successors, Plus X, Benedict XV and Plus XI were mainly interested in peace and quiet; Plus XI had the courage in 1934 to be the first to publicly voice his apprehension in the face of Nazi infringements on human rights, and he warned the world in vain of the grave menace to peace which that regime constituted.

For the past thirty years, numerous studies have been published on the methods by which Hitler assumed power in Germany, consolidated it, and then began his campaigns against neighboring countries, and finally, after contracting alliances, came to attack distant and mighty States in order to achieve global domination. History's answer is categorical. It was by announcing their flagrant contempt for liberty, the equality of man and races, and of human solidarity, by frenzied anti- Semitism and violent attacks on human rights, that Hitler and his gang-leaders launched the most formidable assault ever attempted against the principles of the French Revolution.

The Fascists of Mussolini actually preceded him in this. The techniques of governing by terror were on the rise. But as soon as Hitler came to power he applied them in full. The Versailles Treaty and the Jews were his main targets from the outset. Nominated Chancellor in 1933, he set fire to the Reichstag in order to be able to blame his political adversaries. He had to account to the League of Nations which accused him of violating the 1922 Calonder Treaty with Poland, regarding the minorities of Upper Silesia. After a very mild request to respect the basic rights of his nationals, he ostentatiously broke away from the League in September, and reaffirmed his absolute sovereignty.

Since there was no vigorous reaction throughout the world he allowed himself to intensify his domestic policies of repression and terror. In other European countries, he took the offensive by planning and executing a series of assassinations of heads of State, and setting off a process of moral disintegration within those countries. Having progressed sufficiently with this process of dividing social classes and ethnic groups, he was in a position to allow himself, in the sphere of international politics, to interfere in other countries' affairs, under the pretext of protecting German minorities or of requiring "Lebensraum."

Just before the war, on the morrow of Munich, "Kristallnacht" was the sinister forerunner of what was to follow: war, and the systematic extermination of so-called "inferior" races and the intelligentsia of the occupied countries. Finally, it was the Jews who, after having benefited completely or partially in 19th century Europe from the Human Rights proclaimed in the Declaration of 1789, now became the actual victims and also the most notable symbols of their systematic violation. This is the horrifying history of the Holocaust visited upon six million Jews by means of segregation, hunger, deportation, forced labor, the destruction of the ghettos and the death camps.

So many crimes, not prevented between 1932 and 1944, could not have gone without later judgment, nor could their recurrence be averted without preventive measures. The severe condemnations, in the Nuremberg trials of 1946, of the major war criminals, constituted the main, repressive instrument. Later prosecutions, carried out with various degrees of energy, speed, and effectiveness in the countries of the guilty had a far from sufficient moral effect. Eichmann's condemnation strikes in the midst of that greyness.

As to the Convention designed to prevent genocide and combat any occurrences of it, this was adopted by the United Nations on December 9, 1948, and ratified by at least 75 States, but has never been applied for lack of an International Court. It is hard to envisage how it could be implemented by judges functioning in a dictatorial regime or in the midst of anarchy.

The protest of the human conscience was expressed more positively in the Preamble and first articles of the United Nations Charter—which reconfirms the belief of nations in the dignity of man, and which defines safeguarding and promotion of human rights as one of the main concerns of the United Nations, along with peace. In fact, the Commission on Human Rights, created by the Charter, worked between 1947 and 1954 to develop the three basic instruments of the Charter of Human Rights, as promised to the nations.

These are the Universal Declarations, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, and two Pacts, one relating to the civil and political rights of man, and the other to his economic, social and cultural rights. The pacts were adopted unanimously on December 16, 1966, but are not yet in force, because of an insufficient number of ratifications. The Commission also prepared a convention aiming at the elimination of racial discrimination in all forms. This was adopted in 1965 and, having received the required number of ratifications, is at present valid. The framework of this study does not allow an analysis of these instruments, nor an examination of the total accomplishments of the Commission on Human Rights.

But as we approach the end of a panoramic look at the history of Human Rights, of their eclipse and development since the Decalogue, it is worth making a comparison between the Decalogue, which is the point of departure, and the present Charter which is our temporary point of arrival.

There is no doubt that the contrast is striking. The tone of the Decalogue, of religious inspiration and absolute unity, is both imperative and concise. The style of the Universal Declaration of 1948, a purely human instrument adopted by 56 States of profoundly differing ideologies is formulated in thirty rather long and complex articles. We must, however, insist on another difference which is characteristic. The Decalogue, a religious act, contains only prescriptions and prohibitions. It imposes duties on man, positive or negative ones. The Universal Declaration, a human instrument, proclaims first and foremost man's rights, and only at the very end articulates his duties. One might say that the difference is unimportant: rights and duties are correlative. A man against whom the commission of murder or robbery is forbidden has therefore implicitly the right to his life and his property!

In reality, the inversion in the formulation, already striking in the American and French Declarations of the XVIIIth century, has great significance. In the Decalogue, man is considered a creature and servant of God, one who receives orders. In the XVIIth century Declarations we find the influence of a long evolution in the course of which man has gradually affirmed his liberty, his responsibility, his legal autonomy in relation to the temporal powers conducting society. Those powers are not unlimited. The State, the pre-eminent form of social organization, cannot for instance control the consciences, the thoughts, the speech of its nationals. Nor can it arbitrarily dispose of their lives or their liberty. It is they, the human beings, who form the living reality, and they have the right to participate, directly or through their representatives, in governing their society and in levying their taxes.

The evolution pointed up by the inverted formulation of the Decalogue in the XVIIIth century Declarations went so far as to bring about the omission of so much as a mention of the general duties of man, notably in the French Declaration. The most it said was that a citizen should contribute to public expenses within his means. It is a manifesto in favor of the basic freedom of man, and of the equality of rights too long despised and trampled upon, a manifesto issued after prolonged struggle. As such, it insists on representing man and even the citizen as the responsibility of society, and not only of other men. It is society which must institute an adequate system of justice which will insure that a man is not punished retroactively nor imprisoned arbitrarily, and also that he may participate without fear in peaceful assemblies, and express his thoughts without being molested.

Such exalted individualism could not reach so high a level the middle of the XXth century. Already in the middle of the XIXth century, abuses of liberty to the disadvantage of the weak—notably in the matters of private property and of contract—had provoked protesting voices from social reformers and religious circles. August Comte, the founder of positivism, expressed his opposition in this way: "There is no right but the one to do one's duty." A half-century later, Gandhi echoed him when, upon being asked about human rights, he answered: "The only rights man has are those that enable him to do his duty." In Africa, the notion of duty in man's relation to his family and tribe is of tremendous importance.

The Declaration to be drawn up came in the wake of two world wars which had crushed millions of human beings and had concentrated untold power in the hands of governments, even in the most democratic of countries.

Upon completion of the list of fundamental rights and freedoms, the writers of the Declaration were confronted by the insistence of the socialist countries that express mention be made in what is Article 27, of the duties of the individual towards the community. They were supported by the Latin American countries whose representatives had adopted an "American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man" in Bogota in the winter of 1948. However, they did not insist—nor did I—on attempting what would have been an arbitrary enumeration of the principal duties of man and citizen.

The text adopted by the Commission on Human Rights was rejected by the representative of the Soviet Union, before the third Commission of the General Assembly. He achieved partial success in his aim. But the defenders of the individual's rights against the totalitarianism of the State took certain precautions so that their limitation in the general interest should be solely "such as were required by the exigencies of moral climate, public order, and general welfare in a democratic society." Giving our attention to the manner in which the Declaration envisages the duties of the individual to his fellow-men, one notes that it formulates the most important mutual duty in these terms: "They must act towards each other in a spirit of fraternity."

In regard to the other duties, one can only regret the defective presentation in Article 29, para. 2, which states: "The recognition of and respect for the rights and liberties of others," as a limitation on the rights and liberties of everyone. This is patently insufficient: the abuse of the rights, and the problem of the individual's general duties are not two interchangeable notions. It should have been specifically noted that "every person is generally bound not to interfere with the satisfaction of other people's rights and liberties, and thus respect the exercise of those rights."

The Head of the Catholic Church, Pope John XXIII, was not misled. After years of silence and of profound study, and after thorough thought and reflection, he described the United Nations Declaration in his Encyclical of 1963, Pacem in Terris, as "one of the most important acts of the United Nations" and as "a step towards the politico-judicial organization of the world community." In the chapter on ''Duties" of the Encyclical (no. 30) he was even careful to specify that "in social life, every right conferred on man by nature creates in others (individuals and collectivities) a duty, that of recognizing and respecting that right."

This approval, indeed, was not an isolated phenomenon. In fact, the Declaration speeded up the change in the general position of the Church. For a very long time it had been concerned with the condition of man on earth only insofar as it promoted the fulfillment of his duties and obtained eternal salvation for him. But, since Leo XIII, and mainly since it ceased being a temporal power, the Church has been devoting more and more attention to the lot of the living individual, and of peoples; the most recent Encyclicals, those of Paul VI, as well as those of John XXIII, show that the Catholic Church—as well as the other Christian sects, reformed and orthodox—are becoming increasingly conscious of their duty to foster respect for the freedom and rights of man.

A characteristic example of this evolution can be found in the recent visit of the Pope to Cagliari, in Sardinia. Addressing himself to the slum-dwellers, he first, said: "If civilian authorities... do not feel it their duty to collaborate for the protection of the sacred rights of man ... grave dangers loom on the horizons of such a nation, as history has shown." But he continued: "We have come to honor you, to demand for you the dignified place you deserve within the Church, and also in civilian society to raise your needs (and how numerous they are) to the level of rights; right to a decent home of sufficient size, to daily bread, to work, to schooling, to sanitary installations, to participation in the general welfare, for yourselves and for your children." If we set these words alongside passages in the Encyclical Populonrm Progressio, which states that the right to private property cannot go counter to the general welfare, and alongside the action for peace and the public protest of the Holy See against the tortures inflicted in Brazil on the numerous people arrested there, one can but rejoice at the orientation currently given to one of the most widespread of world religions among those considering the Bible as their Book.

Centuries have passed. Judaism has, throughout unparalleled trials, preserved its passion for justice and its desire to contribute to the defense of the rights of men of all races and origins, along the lines of the very principle with which it was entrusted two thousand years ago. The Ten Commandments, the first Code of the essential duties of man, have suffered many an outrage in history and continue to suffer. Their moral authority remains intact.

The emblem of the Universal Declaration recalls the duty of human fraternity, inspired by that master precept "Love thy neighbor as thyself." May it partake, despite its purely human origin, of the greatness of the Decalogue and appear as its worthy extension.