The paper identifies three analytical zones in human rights adjudication and places a proportionality analysis only in the two last zones. The judge should first define the right and decide whether there is a restriction of the right at stake in the certain case. The second analytical zone starts once the judge decides that there is a restriction, or in other words, an infringement of the right. The question is whether this restriction is a violation of the right or a reasonable limit in a democratic society. If the minimum content of the right is violated, then the right is violated. If the minimum content of the right is not violated, then the analysis involves a proportionality test. The test can become less controversial, appealing to the democratic principle and once it is agreed what is a democratic society. The proportionality analysis can also take place in a third but exceptional analytical zone; the zone of the derogation of the right.