Your above claim is absurd. Currently, courts throughout Europe are preventing the deportation of numerous serious migrant criminals (such as rapists/murderers etc.) all because of their human rights. In the palaeolithic era, such people would have been swiftly executed, just for being freeloaders, never mind the crimes they committed.
In the paleolithic era, human rights did not exist, and they did not apply given the context. Everybody over the age of 8 was either a murderer, a rapist, torturer, or all of the above. Freeloaders would have been executed, yes, and that would be a huge violation of human rights today (or at any other point in the agricultural era, which is where human rights properly apply and exist), but back then it made sense given the context.
All of that said, back to the modern era, people who are proven to be murderders, rapists or torturers of innocent people, with a 100% accuracy (say 99.9999%) have no rights. They forfeited their rights when they committed their crimes. Thus to apply human rights to them is equally as wrong as to apply rights to non-human animals.
(keep in mind that by rape I mean actual forcible rape, that is: either through physical violence, threats of physical violence or of theft either to the victim or third parties, or otherwise lack of waking consciousness or inability to refuse of/by the victim and where there isn't a tacit consent that can be reasonably expected by the perpetrator. I don't mean some radical feminist's wet dream, imagination or morning-after regrets - making a serious attempt to knowingly and willingly incriminate an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit should carry the same if not a larger penalty than committing that crime)
