The aim of this dictionary is to cover comprehensively human rights terminology and human rights instruments. Prof. Sarah Joseph of Monash University says of the dictionary: "Connie de la Vega's Dictionary of International Human Rights Law is a marvellous new human rights resource. It provides concise definitions and explanations of key human rights phrases, including specific recognised and emerging rights, relevant concepts, institutions and instruments. Human rights law has not grown in a vacuum, so some related concepts, such as from international criminal law and the law of armed conflict, are wisely included, This book will be an important addition to the libraries of human rights scholars, practitioners and advocates throughout the world." The dictionary includes two major sections; definitions; and an Appendix with short descriptions of the instruments and references on how to locate them. This project raised various challenges, including the determination of what words to include, how to include them, and how to define them. The decision of how to include the various rights involved whether to list them as the "right to —" or by the name of the right. I made the decision that it would be easier to find each right under its name rather than under a long list of "right to —". However, this determination also involved how to characterize those entitlements that are listed as "freedom of —" or "right to freedom of —". Since there were fewer rights in that category, I have listed them as "freedom of —" without the designation of right, though many do appear in the treaties that way. It might be helpful to note that the distinction between rights and freedoms is not clear or consistently treated in the various human rights instruments, as the definitions of those terms indicate. Many human rights include sub-categories of concepts. So, for example, criminal justice includes a number of separate rights and freedoms. I had to decide how many to define separately. I based the ultimate decision on whether they are stand-alone concepts and how the treaty bodies have addressed them. This may mean that a particular right being looked for could be included in broader concepts. I tried to avoid usage of gender based words unless the rights necessarily involve the use of those words. However, since many of the human rights treaties use the male gender in their language, there are some definitions that include that usage.