Whose rights are more important?

The BBC is reporting this week that an 88 year old Zimbabwean woman, living in the UK with her daughter, has been notified by the UK Border Agency of her impending deportation. To precis: the woman's farm was seized by the Robert Mugabe regime about eight years ago, she was threatened with death (as so many have been in the chaotic land seizures) and fled for her safety.

The UKBA is arguing that there is no basis for her to remain in the UK, and that she would not be in danger if returned to the country. Read the details here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-15366632

Now, a British friend of mine immediately dismissed this as "another sensationalist story by the BBC," and perhaps the crediblity of the story is compromised by this perception of the Beeb.

But here is some context setting:

The UK has offered asylum to a self-confessed former agent within Robert Mugabe's notoriously brutal CIO, because he could face persecution on returning to Zimbabwe. Phillip Machemedze ADMITTED to a court that he was involved in shocking acts of violence and torture. He was also working in the UK illegally, but an immigration court ruled in May that he could remain in the UK to protect his human rights.

http://www.swradioafrica.com/news310511/zpftort310511.htm

In the meantime, two activists with the protest group, the Zimbabwe Vigil, (which has been protesting outside the Zimbabwean Embassy in London for NINE years) have been threatened with deportation this year. Josephine Chari had to, literally, fight her way off the plane and she is being held at Yarls Wood detention centre. Shamiso Kofi too is being held at Yarls Wood after a trauma-filled attempt by UK immigration to deport her last month. Both women have expressed real fears about being recognised as anti-Mugabe protesters.

http://www.swradioafrica.com/2011/10/18/fears-rise-for-zim-activist-facing-deportation-from-uk/

So whose rights are more important? Surely the merits of every immigration case need to be treated with the right human rights context in mind, as was done in Machemedze's case? Why does a self-confessed human rights abuser like Machemedze have more claim to human rights protection than anti-Mugabe protesters?

And where does the 88 year old granny fit in to this all? Or are her rights automatically shrugged off because of her age?

I hope this is not what has become of the human rights debate, because surely no criminal should have preferential treatment no matter what the context.