This is an utterly facile statement. The very concept of "human rights" exist because men made them up.
I meant to go on and say, that's really the point.
Your good old early humans weren't sitting around the fire scratching their fleas when some bright spark piped up with, "what we need here my lads, is a system of laws and processes which balance the rights of the accused against the rights of the public to see justice done and ensure public safety and order."
But when some cave-dweller pinched his neighbour's pointy stick, the only options were violent retribution and counter-offensive or some form of organised justice.
This of course, also elides the fact that while the justice system is probably better than free-for-all retribution, if you're in charge of making the laws, you can make them to your own benefit, to protect your own privilege and possessions. That occurred to Mr Caveman very early on - being in charge of the whole system is a huge advantage.
You can make laws to start wars, dispossess entire populations, own other countries, even own people.
Men, particularly wealthy men, have benefited enormously from the system they created. Everyone else has had to fight tooth and nail to change the laws to include them, Married Women's Property Act, for example.
The justice system wasn't developed by enlightened human rights warriors to benefit the poor and downtrodden - its whole point was the protection of material possessions. And material possessions, by and large, accrued to men.
It is a testament to some men of property and the tenaciousness of those outsiders, that the systems we have work as well as they do. And it is evident that the system still disadvantages many.