8 Amendments of Javier NART related to 2020/2016(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the right to fair trial is a fundamental right which also applies to enforcement of the law, enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which also applies through the entire criminal proceedings, including in law enforcement;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas these technologies can be used to create statistical anonymized databases that help authorities, academics and legislators to analyse figures and efficiently design policies to prevent criminality and to help offenders to successfully reintegrate into society;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
B b. whereas the legal framework of artificial intelligence and its application to criminal law should include legislative actions, where needed, starting with mandatory measures to prevent practices that would undoubtedly undermine fundamental rights and freedoms;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises the strong importance of considering the ethical and operational implications related tof the use of AI and related technologies within criminal justice systems, which entail significant risks such as discrimination and breach of privacy; considers that a clear regulatory framework is necessary to draw the limits and provide the necessary safeguards;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines the importance of being able to access AI-produced or AI-assisted outputs for notification procedures and the role of AI and related technologies in criminal law enforcement and crime prevention; recalls, in this regard, the importance of questions related to governance, transparency and accountabilityabsence of biases, non- discrimination, human oversight, transparency and accountability of AI and related technologies;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the recommendations of the Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI for a proportionate use of biometric recognition technology and suggests that the application of such technology must be clearly warranted under existing laws and urges the Commission to assess how to effectively incorporate theseRecalls that, in accordance with the current EU data protection rules and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, AI can only be used for remote biometric identification purposes where such use is duly justified, proportionate and subject to adequate safeguards; suggests that, in line with the precautionary principle, the application of such technologies should be avoided where their impact on society and the rights and freedoms of individuals is uncertain; urges the Commission to propose relevant solutions to the existing problems following the results of a thorough impact assessment;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Strongly believes that decisions issued by AI or related technologies, especially in the areas of justice and law enforcement, that have a direct and significant impact on the rights and obligations of natural or legal persons, should be subject to strict human verification and due process;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers it necessary to clarify whether law enforcement decisions can be delegated to AI and stresses the need to developthat AI and related technologies that can replace public authority decisions should be treated with the utmost precaution; stresses the need to develop strong ethical principles and codes of conduct for the design, deployment and use of AI and related technologies to help law enforcers and judicial authorities; refers to the ongoing work in the Committee on Legal Affairs.