Pointing to the 2012 report worked out by it on human rights performance in more than 90 countries and regions, the paper said:

The body vehemently criticizes some countries while turning a blind eye to those countries beset with human rights abuses.

Just as the British Sunday Times put it, the organization only expects its report to be used by the U.S. administration.

Human Rights Watch is a NGO, but one may comment it has something in common with the U.S. human rights diplomacy in its way of thinking.

The organization in its report again falsified the fact, bringing to light its despicable true colors as a body keen on interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.

By doing so, Human Rights Watch allowed the trust in its ability to handle human rights issues and, at the same time, trust in itself to sink.

Mark Galasco, an expert of the organization, had been active in Mid-east for several years under the pretext of investigating various war crimes. He had been in charge of confirming the air raid targets of the U.S. forces in Iraq.

At a press interview he admitted that he was involved in at least 50 air raids but there was not accurate targeting even once, killing hundreds of civilians only. On April 5, 2003 the coalition forces made an air strike at Basra of Iraq in an attempt to kill a man widely known as "chemist Ali" but it ended up killing 17 civilians only.

The above-said expert, a strong advocator of human rights, was a zealous collector of goods bearing German Nazi signs. He went the lengths of posting on Internet a photo of him dressed in shirt decorated with Nazi Order Cross. He is now working on a book about his grandfather who served in the German air force during the Second World War and busy getting it ready for printing.

An Israeli organization specializing in analyzing and assessing the composition of NGO, expressed skepticism about the report of the Human Rights Watch. The Israeli organization in a report released on Jan. 9 said: Human Rights Watch more often than not works out a report on the basis of unconfirmed and unreliable information. It is usually impossible to verify it as the HRW quoted "witnesses" as saying something on condition of anonymity. As for what it called "testifier" he is not the person visited by it itself but the one with whom it got in touch over Internet.

A fact requires reliable source of information and should be backed with coherent logic.

Any report unilateral and politically motivated disappoints people.

The report worked out by Human Rights Watch also helps us clearly understand the limited nature of this body and the ulterior political purpose pursued by it, in particular, on the basis of the new "Cold War-" minded way of thinking.