My point is simply there is no applied difference between those two phrasings of that right - right to life vs. right to not be murdered. It's an inalienable right.
If you were to consider the right to murder others as a real right than you'd be engaging in positive vs. negative rights.
A positive or negative right does implicate a hypothetical inverse right but its true legitimacy is based on the inalienable rights, I suppose.
I think you can come up with a hypothetical inverse of any statement, whether it is applicable and a legitimate right is the real question.
I would simply say those societies do not obey the actual law and they are not even functional societies, they may not even be considered societies.