I guess we're going off on a tangent here, but then I'm not sure what a person's right to freedom from violent crime actually provides them, if not a systematic process by which they can get justice.
I would say there is a moral duty not to commit violence against others, and there is a moral right to defend one's self, but I don't see how you really guarantee "right to freedom from violent crime", so it really seems more like a dubious promise. This may be a consequence of my general skepticism of positive rights.