Human rights are a more prevalent topic worldwide, especially in the context of civil conflict. States and rebel groups must consider the repercussions of their actions if they have been found to violate human rights. The literature accounts for why states sign onto and comply with international human rights treaties; however, this paper seeks to explain why rebel groups may comply to human right commitments as well. We argue that making commitments to human rights allows rebels to establish a relatively cheap form of legitimacy. We test this by examining the effectiveness of three types of rebel commitments to human rights: 1) bilateral treaties, 2) unilateral statements, and 3) internal rules and regulations. We find that internal rules and regulations implemented by rebels produce the best human rights outcomes in terms of reducing civilian deaths. We argue this finding is due to internal rules and regulations commitments being specifically applied to rebel soldier's battlefield behavior. Using text analysis, we then examine what type of language generates the higher rate of compliance associated with internal rules and regulations. We also acknowledge that women experience conflict differently than other populations. Rebel humanitarian commitments also impact women differently as some include specific provisions pertaining to women’s concerns while, others do not. Therefore, we also test how gendered language within these commitments impact women, specifically sexual violence against them during civil conflict.