As urban populations grew in the twentieth century, cities became central to economic, cultural, and political activity. This rapid urbanization, however, also introduced challenges like poverty, inequality, and limited access to services. In response, the concept of human rights cities emerged, integrating human rights principles into urban governance. Human rights cities have developed various models, such as the Eugene, Lyon, EU and Barcelona Models. In Indonesia, implementing human rights cities is gaining traction. Still, it struggles with institutional dualism, as two bodies—the National Commission of Human Rights (Komnas HAM) and the Ministry of Law and Human Rights—oversee human rights at different levels. This dualism creates coordination challenges and inconsistent local approaches. Despite this reality, some cities have proven to be able to show initiatives that comply with the global drive to become a human rights city. This chapter analyzes the establishment of human rights cities and the impact of this dualism, suggesting it often hinders transformative action. We assess the indicators and processes of creating these cities by applying the “Right to the City” concept. Our findings indicate that dualism leads to policy inconsistencies and weakens local human rights efforts. We propose strategies to improve policy coordination and institutional synergy to advance human rights cities toward global standards.