During the session “Dialogue of the Supreme Courts of the BRICS countries”, Deputy Chairwoman of the Federal Chamber of Lawyers of the Russian Federation Elena Avakyan spoke about the experience of using artificial intelligence in the courts of China. “China has been using smart court technology since 2016, which is simply an electronic assistant judge and it is very good that China was the first to take this path,” said Elena Avakyan. “Now we can avoid the mistakes that the Chinese made. Namely, they forgot that man is a very lazy creature, he tries not to work when he cannot do it. That is why what was done in the Chinese experiment: if the opinion of a living judge differs from the opinion of the artificial intelligence, the judge. These discrepancies must be justified because the judge’s decision was supposed to correct the mistakes of the artificial intelligence. A standard decision should have appeared, but it all ended up in the judges criticizing the IT specialists, asking what the AI had decided. not to disagree with it and not to justify it.”
He drew attention to another Chinese mistake: an open artificial intelligence system. That is, the electronic assistant judge was placed in all Internet databases. This led to the AI starting to fantasize.
“Artificial intelligence efforts should be directed where there are no disputes, there should be simple and understandable mechanisms. I pressed 5 buttons, I received a court order, if I disagree, I pressed 1 button and appealed,” said Elena Avakyan. “You just need to agree and comply with three basic principles: publicity, transparency and accessibility. The last thing I would like to see in my lifetime is artificial intelligence in the Supreme Court because it should change practice and not be obsessed. Stereotypes change relationships. The rule of law is that man judges man, and no machine should replace man in this sacred process.”
It should be noted that the organizer of the 9th BRICS Legal Forum is the Russian Bar Association. The forum is held at the MGIMO University of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The session was also attended by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Russian Federation, member of the Presidium of the ALR, Tatyana Moskalkova. She noted that there is much in common in the activities of the judiciary and institutions to promote and protect the rights of BRICS citizens.
“We are united by ultimate goals, individual tools and competencies are similar. At the same time, in each BRICS country there are national specificities, including in relation to the interaction of courts and ombudsmen,” said Tatyana Moskalkova. The National Human Rights Commission of India under investigation of complaints has court powers in relation to: calling witnesses, obtaining evidence under oath, etc. If the Commission establishes a violation of human rights, it has the right to recommend that the authority pay compensation or damages to the victim or his family members, provide them with immediate temporary assistance and apply to the relevant Supreme Court or High Court for the restoration of the right;
He also said that the General Inspectorate of the Islamic Republic of Iran is under the direct control of the Head of the Judiciary.
“The recommendations of the Ombudsman are binding. Otherwise, the court may sentence the official to imprisonment for three months and one day to six months or dismiss him from public service for a period of three months to one year,” the Ombudsman explained.
In Brazil, the Federal Prosecutor for Citizens’ Rights has no legal authority to appear before the courts, but can recommend to prosecutors in other areas and other government bodies the adoption of protective measures in the area of human rights. The Ombudsman of the Federal Republic of Ethiopia has the power to investigate cases pending in any court of law before the Office of the Auditor General.
“A comparative analysis of the powers of the ombudsmen of the BRICS countries and the Russian Federation shows that we take a balanced position on this issue, we do not replace the prosecutor’s office or investigative and judicial authorities, but we have sufficient tools,” said Tatiana Moskalkova.
