RESEARCH Decree Number 11 Year 2020. Komnas HAM RI realizes that amid the emergency situation, human rights can be limited for the sake of the people. However, there is an exception for the non-derogable rights, as regulated in Article 4 of the Human Rights Law. According to Komnas HAM RI, an emergency status that is not followed by an expiration is not in line with the principle of human rights restriction.134 One of the essential principles in the emergency condition is temporariness, which contains a message that an emergency status must be carried out within a certain limitation of time. Asril and Ayuni argue that “the longer an emergency period is, in general, the higher possibility to cause anxiety and excess, casualties, restrictions on rights and even abuse of power.”135 Therefore, as stated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, authorities in an emergency (including restrictions on human rights) must have a time limit.136 It has been mentioned in the introduction of this research, how important human rights values and principles are in guiding us through the COVID-19 pandemic situation. A pandemic situation may not be a justification to disrespect, to unfulfilled, and not protect human rights. In fact, a human rights perspective should be a guide in the mitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of the implementation of health protocols, several measures that limit human rights have been taken by the police. For example, by limiting citizens’ movements, imposing fines for offenders, and dispersing crowds. Although Komnas HAM RI tolerates the measures taken by the police on the basis of protecting public health rights as stipulated in Article 9 and Article 73 of the Human Rights Law, however, in several cases, the arrests of residents in crowds have been criticized by civil society for having lack of legal basis.137 The issues discussed above are closely related to Target 16.3, which describes the commitment to “support legal instruments at the national and international levels and equal access to justice for all.” The main problems in relation to the determination of the emergency status and the enforcement of health protocols come down to the legal basis. Komnas HAM RI noted that the government did not impose sufficient restrictions to contain the spread of the virus and protect public health.138 In fact, transparent and firm legality are associated with Target 16.6, which aims to “build accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” Accountable institutions may improve public trust in them, as elaborated in Target 16.7, which commits to “ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” 134 Ibid., Tata Kelola Penanggulangan COVID-19 dalam Perspektif HAM (n.6), 120. 135 Fitra Arsil and Qurata Ayuni, “Model Pengaturan Kedaruratan dan Pilihan Kedaruratan Indonesia dalam Menghadapi Pandemi COVID-19,” Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 50, no. 2 (2020), 423-446. 136 “General Comment on Article 4”, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, published on 31 August 2001, http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler. ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2FPPRiCAqhKb7yhsjYoiCfMKoIRv2FVaVzRkMjTnjRO%2Bfud3cPVrcM9YR 0iix49nlFOsUPO4oTG7R%2Fo7TSsorhtwUUG%2By2PtslYr5BldM8DN9shT8B8NpbsC%2B7bODx KR6zdESeXKjiLnNU%2BgQ%3D%3D. 137 Ibid., Tata Kelola Penanggulangan COVID-19 dalam Perspektif HAM (n.6), 34. 138 Ibid., Tata Kelola Penanggulangan COVID-19 dalam Perspektif HAM (n.6). 31