Speech by M. Hanne Juncher
DGI: Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law
Mr President,
Madam Section Vice-President,
Dear Moderator,
Distinguished Guests,
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to introduce these discussions from the perspective of the work of the Council of Europe.
In your 2021 debate on the theme of the rule of law and justice in the digital age, you already noted that the Council of Europe has been particularly dynamic in recent years in the field of human rights and AI.
The working document for this year’s seminar demonstrates that dynamism, and emphasises that the issues raised by AI, algorithms and big data are more than ever at the heart of our work.
This work in turn reflects the debates taking place in our member and partner states. Whether we are looking at the technological achievements or the social issues they force us to think about, everything is moving very rapidly.
Jules Verne famously wrote: “Whatever one man is capable of imagining, other men will prove themselves capable of realising”. That is all the more true when humans are assisted by AI.
We're only at the beginning of a new technological revolution. AI is the catalyst for transforming many aspects of human life. Recently, AI led to the discovery of allicin, a new anti-bacterial substance that is useful for the discovery of new medicines.
AI has also proven its worth in the fight against online human trafficking, thanks to the Thorn's Spotlight tool, which helps police identify victims of trafficking on the web more effectively and efficiently.
AI tools can be beneficial in promoting equality in recruitment processes; in food security through precision agriculture; in predicting and managing natural disasters, and in personalised medicine.
AI has the capacity to transform many aspects of states’ public administration processes. It can also create immersive virtual learning environments, and it can mitigate language barriers. The list could go on.
But recent years have also been marked by news stories revealing the negative impact of algorithmic systems on human rights.
All over the world, governments are rushing to automate their services, and it is often the vulnerable groups in society who suffer the consequences. That was the case for example with the family allowance case in the Netherlands.
There is also unfortunately great prejudice against women in digital spaces, including AI-generated sexual images and videos. AI systems may also be designed without taking into account the specific risks to children.
In addition, the role of AI in the creation of misinformation and disinformation narratives is expanding. We also have the malicious use of AI in electoral processes and the consequent risks to our democracies from that.
In the light of these developments, we ask ourselves about the risks associated with the latest techniques, and their compatibility with human dignity and human rights.
The Council of Europe is well-placed to tackle those challenges, and the European Court of Human Rights will no doubt be at the forefront of those efforts.
For the moment, cases involving algorithms and big data are few, but it is to be expected that this will change. The debate today on the protection of human rights in the world of AI is therefore very timely.
The boldness with which your Court has interpreted the Convention goes back a long way. It is well established that the Court interprets the Convention as a living instrument, and therefore in the light also of scientific and technological progress. This has been true, for example, for past cases involving biomedical progress and bioethical issues.
Adherence to the ideals and values of a democratic society governed by the rule of law remains at the heart of other Council of Europe standards and standard-setting activities. They also take account of social and technological developments, ensuring an appropriate response to contemporary challenges.
The Council of Europe continues its long tradition of establishing innovative frameworks, such as the 1999 Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, and the 1981 Convention for the Protection of Personal Data. Your Court has referred to these legal instruments on several occasions in the past.
The Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law provides a framework for addressing the human rights impacts of AI.
Eleven non-member states from five continents took part in drawing up the Framework Convention, and 68 representatives from civil society, academia and industry were actively involved. This is an unprecedented number for an international treaty negotiation process within the Council of Europe and shows the level of interest in this exercise from a wide range of stakeholders.
The negotiations were finalised by the Committee on Artificial Intelligence, the CAI, in March last year. The treaty was adopted by the Committee of Ministers in May and opened for signature in September 2024. It already has eleven signatories, including the European Union, which will implement the Convention through the AI Act.
The Framework Convention is based on international and Council of Europe human rights standards. As a treaty open to accession not only by the member states of the Council of Europe, but also by states from other regions of the world that share the same values, this Convention has a global purpose.
While it may not create new rights specific to AI technology, it does oblige Parties to fully apply existing human rights in all activities related to the lifecycle of AI systems, i.e. from system design through to decommissioning.
The Framework Convention adopts a risk-based approach to AI systems, meaning that only systems assessed as posing a potential risk to human rights, democracy and the rule of law fall within its scope.
In accordance with Articles 7 to 13, the activities carried out throughout the lifecycle of AI systems must respect fundamental principles, such as human dignity, personal autonomy, accountability, equality and non-discrimination, among others Other principles are - Respect for privacy and personal autonomy; Transparency and control; Accountability and responsibility; Reliability; Safe innovation..
The Framework Convention applies to AI systems in both the public and private sectors, in accordance with Article 3.
It covers a wide range of technologies, without naming any of them. The text is deliberately technology-neutral, so as to avoid it being out of date before it even enters into force.
The definition of AI, adopted from the OECD Article 2 – Definition of Artificial Intelligence Systems: For the purposes of this Convention, “artificial intelligence system” means a machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations or decisions that may influence physical or virtual environments. Different artificial intelligence systems vary in their levels of autonomy and adaptiveness after deployment., also supports a life-cycle and risk-based approach, with effective regulation of AI systems at every stage.
The Framework Convention provides for a range of remedies, procedural rights and safeguards, and in particular requires Parties to establish a framework for managing the risks and impacts of AI systems on human rights, democracy and the rule of law (Article 16).
Last November, the CAI adopted a methodology for the assessment and management of the risks and impacts of AI systems from the point of view of human rights, democracy and the rule of law – that is the HUDERIA methodology. We are working on more detailed guidelines this year in the form of a risk management model.
In addition, most of the Council of Europe's committees and intergovernmental bodies and specialised bodies, as well as its monitoring mechanisms, have sought to examine the impact of AI in their fields of activity.
I would especially like to highlight the Committee of Ministers' soft law instruments which reflect the positions of our member States, and can inspire the Court in the development of its case law, such as the Recommendation on the impact of algorithmic systems on human rights (CM/Rec(2020)1), and the more specialised Recommendation on the ethical and organisational aspects of the use of AI and related digital technologies by prison and probation services Recommendation CM/Rec(2024)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member States regarding the ethical and organisational aspects of the use of artificial intelligence and related digital technologies by prison and probation services..
It is also worth mentioning the European Ethical Charter for the use of AI in judicial systems and their environment. Adopted in 2018 by the CEPEJ, this Charter was the first European text to set out ethical principles relating to the use of AI in judicial systems.
The European Committee on Legal Cooperation plans to draw up a draft legal instrument framing the use of AI in the areas of police, administration, justice and border and migration management, as part of its future work on administrative law and AI.
In addition, the European Committee on Crime Problems continues to examine the scope of a future legal instrument dealing with criminal liability related to the use of AI.
The Convention Committee on Cybercrime is preparing a study on the specific links between cybercrime, electronic evidence and AI.
The Commission for Gender Equality and the Steering Committee on Anti-Discrimination have a joint mandate to draft a recommendation on equality and AI by the end of this year.
And I would like to mention the Steering Committee for Human Rights, the CDDH, which is working on providing clear, actionable information to help navigate the complex intersection of AI and human rights, in the form of a handbook.
Beyond AI, algorithms and big data, there are also the rapid developments taking place in the area of neuro-technology. Earlier this week, the Council of Europe co-organised a panel on this topic at our Data Protection Day event in Brussels, in which the Jurisconsult of the Court participated – thank you very much for that.
This offers the possibility of detecting certain diseases such as dementia; assisting eye-witnesses in recalling pertinent memories before legal proceedings; or making a prognosis about an individual’s future criminal behaviour. It will raise many legal and ethical issues, and touch on numerous rights in the Convention.
Excellencies, dear colleagues,
This has been a brief overview of the ongoing work on AI and human rights within the Council of Europe. We hope this work will help the Court when dealing with future applications concerning AI and algorithms and big data.
AI is already very much with us today. The challenges are inevitable, and these discussions really could not be more timely.