Many consider that genocide is a final concept, without realizing that this idea is of the genociders, since they especially speak about ultimate solution. While in reality the coining of the word by Lemkin, is in essence the first stage of the research question of the Rights of Humanity. Because the work of Lemkin is not final. He didn’t just provide us merely with an algorithm to recognize a genocide. That is an instrument for the beginning and for this reason the recognition is simply the first stage of the reparation process. So we have to imagine that this whole process is the first stage of the Rights of Humanity. Because we begin with what occurred and mustn’t occur but we continue with what has to occur so that the previous doesn’t reoccur. So our issue is the continuity of Lemkin’s work, because he as well would want this, since he was of continuity even after the systematic destruction. So Genocide comes as a paradigm and not just as an example in order for us to detect the crime against Humanity, because from that and on, we will determine strategies for the protection of these Rights. So we have an analogy which generalizes the pair: crimes-human rights to the pair: crimes against Humanity, because the first difference is genocide. Because the thou shall not commit genocide doesn’t suffice in order to protect Humanity because someone else might do it. Therefore the commandments require advice afterwards. So the love each other is more resistant and constructive, otherwise find someone who can do it to follow him. And Lemkin did it.