Human Rights imply coercion.
Because when something is a Right, it must be fulfilled, somebody must fulfil that Right: by compulsory allocation of a portion of their time, effort, money or other resources.
If the Human Right is absolute - so is the coercion.
Coercion implies that somebody be coerced.
When coercion is necessary, in practice this therefore means that - whoever can be coerced are the ones who are coerced.
Those who can be coerced are The Weak.
(More taxes are taken from those who cannot avoid more taxes; not from those who 'deserve' to be taxed. The higher the tax take, the more this is so. Those who take taxes are The Strong, those who are taxed are The Weak; and the taking of taxes makes The Strong stronger, and The Weak weaker - the feedback loop is positive.)
And, conversely, those who are in a position to resist coercion will not be forced to fulfil Human Rights.
Those who can resist coercion are The Strong.
Therefore, in practice and always, Human Rights are provided by The Strong coercing The Weak to provide the necessary resources.
Human Rights are provided by The Weak.
But because they are acting under coercion, and not acting by choice, The Weak get zero moral credit for providing Human Rights - instead The Strong get moral credit for confiscating resources from The Weak in order to provide Human Rights.
In sum: Human Rights are provided by The Weak, but moral credit goes to The Strong.
Human Rights are how The Strong get ever more power, and more status, and more resources to deploy as they wish; all of this power, money and status being coercively-extracted from the The Weak.
No wonder Human Right are so popular with The Strong! No wonder The Strong are always inventing new Human Rights!