The concepts of human rights and citizen rights are unequal.

Historically, they are distinguished from the famous French Declaration on Human Rights and Citizens of 1789. Later, mixing is allowed, but in contemporary constitutional and international legal acts there is a clear distinction. The differences in the meaning and content of the two concepts are justified by the classical natural legal doctrinec. And these differences are a logical consequence of the distinction between man and the citizen, with the natural and positive law and with the natural and civil state of the individual.

1. Human rights - natural (which are inherent in the birth), irrevocable rights that the individual has and which are inseparable from him as a biological being. They precede the public contract, the state, the organization, therefore precede the positive law. They relate to freedom, equality, ownership.

2. Rights of the citizen - these are the civil and political rights of the individual, later adding the social ones. They are rooted in the public contract that is at the heart of political society. They come with the law, with the positive right. These rights are the opportunities the individual has as a citizen and they allow him to participate in the life of the political body, therefore they are directly related to the organization and functioning of the state. Their summary is the principles of national sovereignty, the separation of powers, the rule of law as an expression of common will.

The aim of the state is to ensure the natural human rights, and therefore also to secure the rights of the citizens. Citizens' rights are subordinate to human rights in the sense that their purpose is to express and provide them. The rights of the citizen and human rights are connected and not opposed. They are united in their subjects because they are the rights of the individual.

Citizens' rights have their own legal content, which varies from country to country. Unlike human rights, those of the citizen also imply obligations.

Contemporary distinction of concepts. From the point of view of the contemporary understanding of human rights, man's nature is not only biological, but we associate it with the ability to think and feel. So the nature of a person is above all social, because one is included in the network of social relations and outside it is not possible to exist. Human rights derive from man's bio-social nature; they are related to it. This is obvious in the case of the right to life, to the bodily integrity with its divisions and consequences, a ban on torture; freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. Human rights are formed OUT OF THE COUNTRY and in this sense do not depend on it. It does not matter whether or not they have them, but she has to recognize them. When they acknowledge them, they are elements of positive law - national and international. From this, it can be concluded that rights are a social rather than a legal phenomenon. They are naturally inherent in man and as such are inalienable.

The term "human rights" expresses the universal value of human that occurs individual irrespective of his nationality, class, social group to which it belongs, their ethnicity. Human rights are UNIVERSAL. Their universality is a very important feature that distinguishes them from the rights of the citizen. This distinction redefines the advanced legal framework of human rights, above all in international law. Today's perception of human rights broadens this notion. A number of personal, political, social and cultural rights are added.

• Citizens 'rights - legally recognized by their citizens' rights. They characterize the person already as belonging to a certain one. Citizens' rights are enshrined in national regulations and are provided with legal guarantees - judicial protection, constitutional control, ombudsman. Human rights recognized as a citizen's right can be further developed and made more concrete. The provisions on citizens' rights can not be the same for all countries. For example: political human rights are universal in content and meaning, but when you see them as rights of the citizen, they receive another obraz- their legal attachment is quite different in size and shape in different countries. Between human rights and the rights of the citizen there is a connection, a coincidence in a certain direction, but contradictions are also possible. Ultimately, it can be assumed that human rights and citizens' rights complement each other.

II. Human Rights and Subjective Rights. Constitutional provisions on fundamental rights are objective legal norms which establish an abstract and common legal position. If a person is in a factual situation which covers the hypothesis of the rule of law, then on the basis of that objective constitutional rule for that person