The problem raised in this study is what are the weaknesses in the implementation of controlled delivery in the investigation of narcotics crimes in realizing the protection of human rights and How to reconstruct it in order to realize the protection of human rights. To find answers to these problems, the study uses a sociological juridical research type where The method of qualitative analysis is used on the data obtained, and presented in the form of written words supported by quantitative and qualitative data to then draw an inductive conclusion. The Result Shows that the weakness referred to is contained in the definition of Controlled Delivery which is still ambiguous and the usefulness of Controlled Delivery is as stated in Law number 35 of 2009 article 45 (j) and article 49 where even though it is used to uncover drug trafficking networks, controlled delivery make investigators pretend to be drug dealers so that those caught are drug users who are the last link in the drug network (end users) so that the information obtained is certainly not as much as when investigators pretend to be buyers (Undercover Buying) even though the view is that drug users are perpetrators need to be reviewed because their condition is not as “perpetrators”, but as “victims” who need a helping hand in order to recover, not punishment. So that the reconstruction referred to in Article 49 of Law Number 35 of 2009 through the addition of the word "while still respecting and protecting the rights of victims of drug abuse as victims" can mean that the rights of victims of drug abuse are recognized and not treated as "Perpetrators" anymore.