Answer:
Different recommendations and conclusion can be drawn on human rights violation in government and communities.
Explanation:
1-Foremost thing that government can do is the legislation to control the human rights violation and this law should be applicable on all the people belong to any community. Government also make human rights violation issue a part of their policy so that every government could understand before hand.
2-Communities should run campaign so that people understand their human rights and can complain against such violations.
Human right violations happens all over the world but individuals and government need to work together to stop and eradicate such violations
Answer:
Yes, I feel as thou people who are found guilty of a heinous act need to be viable to capital punishment. I say this because the long term affect a crime like that can have on someone. It can cause serious damage and resault in self harm or worse for the victim/ victims familys. There is a never ending line of heinous crimes but being viable for capital sentencing may help stop that line.
Explanation:
Hope This Helps
Have A Great Day
~Zero~
What might you, as his colleague, advise him concerning the type of scrutiny he will be under is: d. Organizations sponsoring Medicare health plans are responsible for the behavior of their contracted representatives and will be conducting monitoring activities to ensure compliance with all applicable Federal law and guidance and plan policies. Furthermore, state agent licensure laws are not preempted and he must abide by their requirements.
<h3>What is medicare?</h3>
A medicare can be defined as a health insurance coverage that help to cover medical expenses.
Based on the given scenario what you might advise him concerning the type of scrutiny he will be under is that company that is incharge of the medicare plan are the one incharge of the representatives behavior.
Therefore the correct option is D.
Learn more about medicare here:brainly.com/question/1960701
#SPJ1
Answer:
The correct answer is A. Decided during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, this accommodation onrepresentation in the proposed US House of Representatives tacitly acknowledged slavery and kept the Southern slave states from rejecting the Constitution. It was called the Three-Fifths Compromise.
Explanation:
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from the southern states and delegates from the northern states during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The debate centered on on the fact whether slaves would be counted at the same time as determining the total population of a state to determine legislative representation and for taxative functions. The matter was important, while that population number then used to determine how many seats the state would have in the House of Representatives for the next ten years. The effect was to give the southern states one-third more seats in Congress and one-third more votes they would otherwise have, allowing slave interests to largely dominate the United States government until 1865.
