The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how important human rights protections are in times of emergency and uncertainty. They help us to discern our priorities, and make difficult decisions that respect human life and ensure that other rights are not unnecessarily restricted. As we emerge from the pandemic, it is clear that strong rights protections are needed and wanted to help us navigate our collective future, through both times of calm and times of crisis. 1.5 Responding to COVID-19 – a case study (a) Role of human rights in times of crisis Human rights law provides a framework for making decisions in times of crisis.11 It provides a mechanism that can ensure that the usual rule of law principles and political norms are not secondary when responding efficiently and effectively to emergencies. Human rights not only provide an important check on executive power; they help us make emergency decisions that are rational, balance multiple factors, minimise human cost, and prioritise human life. In the case of COVID-19, the human rights framework enables unprecedented measures to protect human life. The right to life is absolute and the right to health requires government to ensure access to healthcare and to prevent the spread of epidemics.12 In some cases, this will mean that important rights are justifiably limited in order to protect public health – for example, freedom of association and freedom of movement. Wherever rights are balanced against each other or limited, the human rights framework provides guidance on how to approach the assessment. All limitations on rights must be: • Lawful, namely prescribed by law and accessible to the public. 36 • In pursuit of a legitimate aim, such as the promotion of other human rights and public interests (for example, public health). • Reasonable, necessary and proportionate. This means that interferences with rights must be » A rational means of achieving the legitimate aim » Necessary to achieve the aim (including in light of other options) » Proportionate to the aim (no more than what is required to achieve the aim, and the least intrusive option possible). • All measures taken must also be nondiscriminatory. When applying these criteria to COVID-19 measures such as lockdowns, we can come to conclusions about appropriate courses of action that align with human rights. Each measure must be lawful and clearly communicated to the public. COVID-19 measures are in pursuit of public health outcomes, and therefore have a legitimate aim. Whether a measure is reasonable, necessary and proportionate depends on the circumstances, including the level of risk to health (which changes over time), the necessity of the measure to addressing the health risk, and the extent of the impact on other important rights. For example, restrictions on the right to protest may be justified when the population is unvaccinated and COVID-19 is prevalent in the community, but may be less justifiable when there are high vaccination rates and precautionary measures are taken by the protest organisers to mitigate COVID-19 risks. The implementation must also be proportionate – for example, excessive or criminal sanctions for peaceful protesting would be unnecessary to realising the goal of the restrictions — protecting health.