Since the COVID-19 prevention and control measures limit various fundamental rights (i.e. the right to privacy, the freedom of assembly, religion, residence, labor, etc.), we examined whether the infection control measures and the criminal sanctions against interferences with them conform to the principle of proportionality.

First, we reviewed the contents of COVID-19 prevention measures and domestic and international human rights recommendations related to COVID-19. The analysis targeted central and local government guidelines and white papers on the prevention of infectious diseases, the World Health Organization's recommendations for the prevention of infectious diseases including COVID-19, and the suggestions of human rights organizations and civil society. In analyzing the government's countermeasures, we used the timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic as an axis along which to track changes in the scope and content of the government’s actions.

Second, we examined whether the fundamental rights restrictions complied with the principle of proportionality, focusing on major measures such as ‘contact tracing’, ‘isolation/quarantine’, and ‘cohorting in residential facilities’. As for contact tracing, we looked at the history and significance of contact tracing programs, and looked at the scope of information collection, the standards for information management, and the problem of limiting privacy in the context of data protection and information rights. As for isolation/quarantine, we focused on the freedom of movement, the freedom of occupation, cohorting and health rights issues. With regard to the rights of facility residents, we reviewed the human rights issues of residents in social welfare facilities and inmates of correctional facilities in the context of COVID-19 prevention and control measures.

Third, we examined whether the criminal sanctions against interferences with the government’s COVID-19 countermeasures complied with the principle of proportionality. Violations such as obstructions of epidemiological investigations, noncompliance with inspection, treatment, hospitalization, and quarantine measures, and violations of social distancing measures were examined.

Fourth, we made suggestions on the improvement of prevention methods for infectious diseases and related prevention policies. The suggestions addressed the scope of information disclosure, the scope of ‘suspects of infectious diseases’, the relief of rights of quarantine measures and targets, and the direction of improvement related to sanctions against violations of the prevention measures.