Bridging Justice and Privacy: The Role of the EU AI Act inthe Realm of International Criminal Evidence
Keywords:
EU Artificial Intelligence Act, International Criminal Court, Evidence Law, Data Governance, PrivacyAbstract
A pioneering legislative framework, the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) seeks to regulate high-risk AI systems to guarantee transparency, accountability and user privacy. Though the Act introduces important safeguards, they pose significant challenges for international legal proceedings, particularly for the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has recently announced its goal to incorporate AI into the Court’s workings. The stringent requirements put forth by the Act on
data governance, human oversight and ethical compliance will likely impede the ICC’s access to critical AI-generated evidence affecting the delivery of justice. This article analyses the implications of the AI Act using the frameworks in the United States and Germany to highlight existing challenges in the transparency, reliability and accountability of AI evidence. Through this analysis, the article identifies gaps in the AI Act and proposes reforms, including enhanced transparency mandates, conditional data portability, cross-border data-sharing frameworks, and safeguards against the misuse of sensitive data. These measures aim to draw a balance between privacy and public interests, ensuring the effective use of AI-generated evidence in international criminal trials. As AI shapes global justice systems, it is necessary to foster cooperative international frameworks to balance innovation with accountability, which would protect human rights as well as the principles of justice in an AI-driven future.
References
1. Artificial Intelligence Act 2024.
2. European Parliament, Legislative Resolution on the Proposal for a Regulation Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act) (TA-9-2024-0138) https://www.europarl. europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0138_EN.pdf accessed 26 November 2024.
3. Philippa Metcalfe et al., ‘Risking Lives: Smart Borders, Private Interests and AI Policy in Europe’ (2023) https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/162104/ accessed 26 November 2024.
4. Grimm PW, Grossman MR and Cormack GV, ‘Artificial Intelligence as Evidence’ (Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons 2021) https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern. edu/njtip/vol19/iss1/2/ accessed 2 February 2025.
5. Quezada-Tavárez K, Vogiatzoglou P and Royer S, ‘Legal Challenges in Bringing AI Evidence to the Criminal Courtroom’ (2021) 12(4) New J Eur Crim Law 531 https://doi.org/10.1177/2032284 4211057019 accessed 26 November 2024.
6. Rao P, “These Are the EU Countries With the Largest Economies,” World Economic Forum, February 1, 2023, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/02/eu-countries-largest-economies-energy-gdp/ accessed 27 November 2024.
7. Gless S, ‘AI in the Courtroom: A Comparative Analysis of Machine Evidence in Criminal Trials’ (2020) 51 Geo J Int Law 195 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3602038 accessed 26 November 2024.
8. Ozkaya I, ‘What Is Really Different in Engineering AI-Enabled Systems?’ (2020) 37(4) IEEE Softw 3 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9121629 accessed 1 December 2024.
9. ‘Cognitive Bias, Privacy Rights, and Digital Evidence in International Criminal Proceedings: Demystifying the Double-Edged AI Revolution’ (2023) 21(2) Int Crim Law Rev 242 https://brill.com/view/journals/icla/21/2/article-p242_242.xml accessed 26 November 2024.
10. Villasenor J and Foggo V, ‘Artificial Intelligence, Due Process and Criminal Sentencing’ (2020) 2020 Mich St Law Rev 295 https://works.hcommons.org/records/ck4gx-brj43 accessed 27 November 2024. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/mslr2020&div=11&g_ sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals accessed 27 November 2024.
11. International Criminal Court, ‘ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC Announces Launch of Advanced Evidence Submission Platform (OTPLink)’ https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-announces-launch-advanced-evidence-submission-platform-otplink accessed 27 November 2024.
12. Pillai P and de Hemptinne J, ‘The Use of AI at the ICC: Should We Have Concerns? Part I’ (Opinio Juris, 11 October 2023) https://opiniojuris.org/2023/10/11/the-use-of-ai-at-the-icc-should-we-have-concerns-parti/#:~:text=The%20explosion%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence,philosophy %20of%20continued%20improvement%2C%20to accessed 27 November 2024.
13. International Criminal Court, 2023 Strategic Plan of the Office of the Prosecutor (August 2023) https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2023-08/2023-strategic-plan-otp-v.3.pdf accessed 27 November 2024.
14. Spiridonov MS, ‘Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Criminal Procedural Proving’ (2023) 2 J Digit Technol Law https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/artificial-intelligence-technologies-in-criminal-procedural-proving accessed 27 November 2024.
15. Hildebrandt M, ‘Algorithmic Regulation and the Rule of Law’ (2018) 376 Philos Trans R Soc A 20170355 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0355 accessed 26 January 2025.
16. State v Loomis 881 NW 2d 749 (Wis 2016).
17. Yeung K, 'Algorithmic Regulation: A Critical Interrogation’ (2018) 12(4) Regul Gov 505 https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12158 accessed 26 January 2025.
18. Williams v City of Detroit No 22-1344 (6th Cir Dec 2, 2022).
19. von Eschenbach WJ, 'Transparency and the Black Box Problem: Why We Do Not Trust AI’ (2021) 34(4) Philos Technol 1607 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-021-00477-0 accessed 26 January 2025.
20. OECD, OECD Artificial Intelligence Review of Germany (OECD Publishing 2024) https:// doi.org/10.1787/609808d6-en accessed 20 January 2025; DKV Analytics, AI Industry in the USA (2023) https://analytics.dkv.global/ai-ecosystem/usa/ai-industry.pdf accessed 20 January 2025.
21. William Daubert, et ux., etc., et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
22. Frye v United States (1923) 293 F 1013 (DC Cir).
23. Pattison-Gordon J, ‘Judges Must Weigh Admissibility of AI Evidence’ (Government Technology, 27 September 2023) https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/judges-must-weigh-admissibility-of-ai-evidence accessed 27 November 2024.
24. Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung - StPO), Translation provided by the Federal Ministry of Justice of Germany, 2019 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_ stpo.html accessed 27 November 2024.
25. Gless, Lederer, Weigend, (n 5).
26. ‘Predictive Models and Risk Assessment in Criminal Justice’ (2020) 19(1) Law Philos Rev 43 https://academic.oup.com/lpr/article/19/1/43/5807887 accessed 26 November 2024.
27. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014).
28. Rwetembula V, ‘Legal and Practical Challenges for the Admissibility of AI Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in Mainland Tanzania’ (2024) 7(1) East Afr J Law Ethics 136 https://doi.org/ 10.37284/eajle.7.1.2431 accessed 26 November 2024.
29. Custers B, ‘AI in Criminal Law: An Overview of AI Applications in Substantive and Procedural Criminal Law’ in Custers B and Fosch-Villaronga E (eds), Law and Artificial Intelligence (TMC Asser Press 2022) vol 35 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-523-2_11 accessed 26 November 2024.
30. Rahman ATS and Kaur A, ‘The Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Administration of Criminal Law and the Procedures Involved in Criminal Cases’ (2024) ACROSET, Indore https://doi.org/10.1109/ACROSET62108.2024.10743336 accessed 26 November 2024.
31. Article 13, European Parliament, Legislative Resolution on the Proposal for a Regulation Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act) (TA-9-2024-0138) OJ L, 2024/1689.
32. Chauhan S, ‘AI and Judicial Decision-Making: Implications for Criminal Trials in India’ (2023) 6 Int JL Mgmt Human 352 https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ijlmhs24&div= 35&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals. (Accessed 27 November 2024).
33. Grimm PW, Grossman MR and Cormack GV, ‘Artificial Intelligence as Evidence’ (2021) 19 Nw J Tech Intell Prop 9 https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nwteintp19&div= 4&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals (Accessed 26 November).
34. Article 10, European Parliament, Legislative Resolution on the Proposal for a Regulation Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act) (TA-9-2024-0138) OJ L, 2024/1689.
35. ‘Article 10: Data and Data Governance | EU Artificial Intelligence Act’ (Artificialintelligenceact.eu 2016) https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/10/?utm_source=chatgpt.com accessed 2 February 2025.
36. Yadav S et al., ‘Artificial Intelligence: An Advanced Evolution in Forensic and Criminal Investigation’ (2023) 1(1) Curr Forensic Sci e190822207706 https://doi.org/10.2174/2666484 401666220819111603 accessed 26 November 2024.
37. ‘General Data Protection Regulation’ (GDPR), Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (22 October 2021) https://gdpr-info.eu/art-5-gdpr/?utm_source=chatgpt.com accessed 2 February 2025.
38. ‘European Data Governance Act’ (Shaping Europe’s digital future 16 December 2024) https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/data-governance-act accessed 2 February 2025.
39. Article 5, European Parliament, Legislative Resolution on the Proposal for a Regulation Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act) (TA-9-2024-0138) OJ L, 2024/1689.
40. Blount K, ‘Using Artificial Intelligence to Prevent Crime: Implications for Due Process and Criminal Justice’ (2024) 39 AI Soc 359 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z accessed 26 November 2024; Nissan E, ‘Legal Evidence, Police Intelligence, Crime Analysis or Detection, Forensic Testing, and Argumentation: An Overview of Computer Tools or Techniques’ (2009) 17(1) Int J Law Inf Technol 1 https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/ean009 accessed 26 November 2024.
41. McKay C, ‘Predicting Risk in Criminal Procedure: Actuarial Tools, Algorithms, AI and Judicial Decision-Making’ (2019) 32(1) Curr Issues Crim Justice 22 https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329. 2019.1658694 accessed 26 November 2024.
42. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a 43(6).
