SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION tation and that the question of internet shutdowns is a matter “that needs to be brought to the fore front and clear solution found for it including but not limited to creating clear rights and responsibilities around it.” In Indonesia, the Jakarta State Administrative Court, in the case Alliance of Independent Journalists v. Minister of Communication, held that the actions taken by the government —shutting down the internet network in West Papua and Papua province— were unlawful and ordered the government to pay to the plaintiffs the amount of 457,000 rupiah (or $30.59 approximately). After recognising the right to access the internet as a means of freedom of expression, the Court referred to the 1945 Indonesian constitution, national laws and international treaties, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 34, to decide whether the restrictions laid down by the government on the right to access internet services, freedom of expression, and the right to seek information and other rights used through the internet, were in conformity with the existing human rights framework. The Court noted that restrictions on freedom of expression must fulfil three conditions. First, they must aim to protect one of the following objectives: right to reputation, morality, religious values, security, decency, public order, or public health; second; restrictions must be based in law, and third, they must be proportional. The Court also made an important observation regarding the right to access the internet by stating that “internet has been used not only as a vehicle to channel the right to express opinions and the right to seek, obtain and convey information, but also to be used as media to realize the broad freedom of expression which enables many other human rights to be carried out, including the right to education and teaching, the right to benefit from science and technology, arts and culture, the right to work, political rights, the right to associate and assemble, and the right to health services.”111 Based on these general parameters (as well as applicable provisions from domestic legislation), the Court established that in cases of online dissemination of unlawful content, an appropriate and proportional action would be the restriction on the right to access the internet only for perpetrators, since “if it is carried out in its entirety through the termination of the internet network, it will have a greater negative impact in the form of derogating other human rights that can be positively realized through the internet.”112 Therefore, “the right to internet access can only be derogated through termination of the internet network if in a state of emergency in accordance with applicable law.”113 The Court thus recognises the relevance of the internet as an instrument for the effective exercise of the right to freedom of expression and acknowledges the need to use international human rights standards to define the legitimate limits to this right, including measures to deal with the dissemination of illegal content online where wholesale shutdowns are excluded. However, at the same time the Court admits the possibility of adopting more intrusive measures within the context of a state of emergency declared and enforced according to domestic legislation. Unfortunately, this ruling, which was seen as more protective of the right to internet access, was overturned a year later by the Constitutional Court of Indonesia with seven votes out of nine. The Constitutional 111 112 113 Alliance of Independent Journalists v. Minister of Communication, no. 230/G/TF/2019/PTUN-JKT, p. 246, PTUN JKT 2020. Alliance of Independent Journalists v. Minister of Communication, no. 230/G/TF/2019/PTUN-JKT, p. 274, PTUN JKT 2020. Ibid. 37