I define all human rights as a set of “mutually exclusive” and “collective exhaustive” actions that human beings can legitimately wish to perform.
But one would say that there is bound to be a lot of overlap. But all overlaps can be removed using certain priniples.

So, if I say that I have a right to snatch Gaurav’s purse, it infringes on his right to keep his own purse. Thus there is a conflict.
Also, if I say that I have a right to a job, then I am infringing on some employers right to employ a person of his choice. Again, a conflict. These rights are obviously not mutually exclusive.

The way to resolve these conflicts is to use the principle of “ownership”. Thus, Gauravs ownership of the purse, and the employers ownership of the job render my rights stated above inferior.

But this is all very easy so far. What if two people are both thrown overboard from a ship, and there is only one lifejacket, which neither of them owns.
In this case, there is no ownership. So neither of them have a right to use the jacket. But both have a right to pursue the jacket to save their own lives. It is obvious in this case that one of them will die. But does this mean that the survivor has infringed upon the dead persons right to live? Not really! In this case, both of them only had a right to “try to save oneself”. These rights are mutually exclusive, so essentially there is no conflict.

Any loophole in the above definition?

I see rights as either positive or negative. The former guarantees that you are provided with some good or service, the latter guarantees that you are not deprived of your rights.

So the Right to Food or Education is a positive right, it involves something being taken away from someone else to give it to the recipient. The Right to Life, Liberty and Property on the other hand ensures that you are not deprived of something you already have.

So when you talk about slitting Ck’s throat, as a right it is a positive right, you are not born with the intrinsic right to slit his throat. In my opinion right’s ensured under the law should ideally be negative rights, that protect, rather than provide.

e.g. the council shall have to have power. Why should people with “rights” listen to it otherwise? How does it get this power? Whether brute force (aka monarchy) or by majority force (aka democracy) the net result is that the wishes/rights of some receive more importance
than others. e.g. if the majority think hot pants are sleazy and should be banned, the minority ends up having to accept that because of the ‘council’ and where it gets its power from.

In your example - the right to subjugate my woman
by burkhafying her WOULD be enforced against other rights if that is what the council deems to be more important.

The human’s “right” to hunt an animal conflicts with the animal’s right to be simply left alone. (which many would agree is a basic right in humans)

If we say that rights are only for humans, how will we defend ourselves when being taken as slaves by say, superior aliens or AIs, who belive that rights are only for them?

Q.2 - If a person is left in the middle of the atlantic ocean and told that he has the freedom to walk home, does that make any sense? similarly, if in a society where all land has already been appropriated, what rights can the newly born possibly have? We say that he has the right to live - But live where? and live how? Does it make sense to talk of the right to live without the right to a portion of the earth where one might live and work?

(full disclosure - I am a libertarian, but a very rare variety called geo-libertarian. i believe in a highly decentralised minarchy sustained by the appropriation of the rent on natural resources)