Freedom from religion.

You're not entitled to be free from people practicing their religion near you, e.g. you don't have the right to not have churches in your block

The right to clean food and water.

You can't invade someone's property to get food and water.

The right to self defense.

A juri needs to agree self defense was required, you can't kill someone because you thought he was going to do something to you without evidence of it.

The right to attempt escape from imprisonment.

That's not a right most countries even recognize, in fact it is a crime on most countries to attempt to escape imprisonment, even if you are wrongfully detained by the state.

The right to a fair trial.

Fair is very relative, people get injustly put away constantly, just as much as guilty people are not. Even if we had 100% certainty on the conviction, people would disagree on the penalty, to some it's not fair that a person who killed others gets to keep living, while to others it's unfair that someone should be sentenced to death regardless of their crime. While I believe that this is the hardest one to answer of your points it is so because the word fair is very subjective, what if my idea of a fair trial is so different from yours that we can never conciliate both? Whose idea of fair trial is the one that gets implemented? Certainly the other will believe the trial was not fair.

The right to life

Unless you try to kill someone and he defends himself

liberty

Unless you commit a crime

and security of person.

Again, unless you threaten someone

The right of the abolition of slavery in all forms.

That's another wording for freedom, by several metrics, prisoners are slaves.

None of those are unrestricted, which is what the original person said.