Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Legal Studies
Reference:

Ñomparative legal study of artificial intelligence positioning in judicial proceedings.

Morhat Petr Mechislavovich

Doctor of Law

Judge; Arbitration Court of the Moscow District

107053, Russia, Moscow, Prospekt Akademika Sakharova str., 18, room 604

judiciary2024@yandex.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.25136/2409-7136.2024.7.71263

EDN:

TBOCPB

Received:

15-07-2024


Published:

27-07-2024


Abstract: The author studies the experience of using artificial intelligence in the framework of legal proceedings in the USA, China and Russia. This analysis includes not only an analysis of judicial practice, but also a study of strategic documents assigned at the government level of these countries. Goal of the research is to identify effective starting points for the implementation of AI in the judiciary, to determine the features of regulation of AI in the judicial process and specify prospects for determining the full autonomy of AI for judicial proceedings. The objectives of the study are to determine the main trends in the implementation of AI in the field of judicial process, highlight areas that can currently be algorithmically processed by AI, as well as determine future designs of the legal personality of AI, taking into account the opinion of the professional judicial community of Russia. The research methodology includes systemic, structural-functional, hermeneutic and comparative legal methods. The authors makes general conclusions about the prospects of AI for the judicial process and formulates optimal tracks for the use of AI in judicial cases, taking into account the comparative legal research conducted. Based on the comparative legal research carried out, the author formulated the increasing role of artificial intelligence technology used in the judicial process. The need to improve the legislative framework taking into account the technological specifics of AI and ensure an adequate level of information security when using this technology is noted. In addition, a starting point has been identified for the effective and safe implementation of AI as an autonomous participant in the process in relation to disputes that are considered in a simplified manner or contain a high proportion of data that is reliably verified and stored electronically.


Keywords:

artificial intelligence, predictive justice, judicial process, digital court, information security, public law, litigation, arbitrage practice, digital State, e-person

This article is automatically translated.

Over the past decade, artificial intelligence (AI) has been actively integrated into the sphere of public relations in various countries, strategic documents are being formed in the field of regulating the use of AI in various sectors of the economy and law[5]. In this logic, a trend is being formed and developing towards the implementation of justice using intelligent assistants, the development of a comprehensive regulatory approach to the safe implementation of this technology in the judicial sphere.

Previously, we investigated the phenomenon of artificial intelligence (hereinafter - AI) in the context of the possible involvement of AI units in the judicial process[1]. Considering the role and place of AI in the judicial process, we noted the possible participation of this technology at the stage of prudential control, information and documentary support of legal proceedings, provision of expert-analytical intellectual legal proceedings, linguistic and other analysis[2].

For this work, the research methodology is based on systemic, structural-functional, hermeneutical and comparative legal methods. Within the framework of the systemic and structurally functional method, the positions of states and law are studied in the context of the application of AI in the field of judicial proceedings, the function of law and legal responsibility, through the prism of decision-making by a judge using AI technology. The hermeneutical method is reflected in the analysis and interpretation of the positions of the courts regarding the admissibility of the use of AI technology in the judicial process. The comparative legal method (the method of legal comparative studies) is the main method within the framework of this article, since the analysis of current approaches related to the regulation of AI in foreign countries (China, USA, France) and Russia is actively used.

Considering the technology of artificial intelligence, it should be noted that this technology penetrates deeper into the sphere of public relations and arouses the corresponding interest both among researchers from a regional perspective[3, 4] and at the level of international organizations[5, 6]. In this regard, it is proposed to investigate the AI phenomenon in more detail in the context of the judicial process of the world's leading countries.

At the level of the leading countries, it is impossible not to mention the experience of China. In 2017, China published its Artificial Intelligence Development Plan, which outlines China's strategic goal setting until 2030 in the field of AI technology development. It should be noted that within the framework of long-term AI planning, the use of AI in new forms of "electronic management" is envisaged for the horizon of 2030[7].

Considering China's experience in detail, it should be noted that the country's national plan on the regulation of AI technology provides a brief paragraph on the possibilities for future "smart courts", indicates the creation of an application (or a set of IT solutions) to ensure litigation, interactive support of the trial, including evidence collection, case analysis, reading and analysis legal documents.

Obviously, providing an appropriate database for AI training requires the formation of a "data bank".

In 2014, the Supreme People's Court of China declared "openness" and "judicial transparency" as key components of the judicial process for this purpose[8]. The government platform "China Judgments Online" currently hosts more than 130 million public documents[9]. This data bank contains additional sub-platforms "Similar Court Decisions" and "China's Big Data Justice Service Platform", which allow judicial officials and members of the public to search for data on court decisions[10].

In the future, it is necessary to note the formation of the revolutionary AI system "System 206" in Shanghai, which has cognitive functions based on machine learning[11]. At the stage of filing documents, this system checks the criteria for accepting the case, an intellectual reminder of the payment of the court fee and the intellectual formation of procedural documents; at the stage of pre-trial analysis, it identifies the essence of claims, determines the position of the defense, identifies the facts and causes of the dispute, analyzes the case materials, verifies the completeness and reliability of evidence and prepares a plan for holding a court session with a preliminary at the stage of the trial, establishes indisputable facts, the positions of the parties, conducts paperless cross-examination and prepares the minutes of the court session; at the stage of making a decision, AI helps in selecting the legislative framework, similar court cases, prepares a preliminary decision prepared by analogy with another case, as well as related documents (for which separate subsystems have been created).

As part of the pilot operation of the AI, 495864 cases were processed in 2016 alone, by April 2019, the AI was processing and detailing cases related to road traffic disputes, credit cards, equity participation, dissemination of information on the Internet, etc. This tool significantly simplified the work of judges and indirectly influenced the reduction of the judicial corps in 2017, the number of judge quotas from 210,000 to 120,000 people[12].

As of 2021, the automatic speech recognition technology underlying the 206 system provided by iFlytek has been implemented in more than 4,200 courtrooms across the country[13].

In addition to the above-mentioned AI decisions, more attention needs to be paid to prospective AI judges who directly assist in making court decisions (moving from assistants to potential participants). In Hangzhou, the AI judge "Xiao Zhi" was used to adjudicate a private loan dispute, helping a human judge review the case and make a decision in less than 30 minutes[14]. This AI helps judges in real time with an interactive pool of arguments, evaluation of evidence and recommendations for a decision.

These AI decisions, for all their merits and decision-making speed, are carried out under the close supervision of human judges, and no court decision is executed without human approval.

The position of Zhou Qiang, Deputy Chairman of the 14th convocation of the CPC Central Committee (previously Chairman of the Supreme People's Court of China from 2013 to 2023), is that "AI will never replace human judges and can only serve judges (as assistants)." At the same time, Zhou Qiang calls for more intensive use of AI technology in the judicial process, to consult with AI when considering all categories of cases[15]. If the judges reject the recommendations of the AI, they must provide a written explanation of their actions[16].

With all these advantages, it is impossible not to note certain disadvantages of AI technologies for the purposes of the judicial process. For example, current pilot programs testing facial and emotion recognition technology to confirm the reliability of readings are unreliable and technologically imperfect at the moment[13]. There are also issues of behavioral adaptation (which is formed in potential offenders) and uniformity of judicial practice, which is a source of processing for AI. In this situation, we understand that the AI analyzes the situation based on a certain model formed in the array it previously processed. Bearing in mind the indicated mandatory practice of providing explanations from judges about the reason for disagreement with the recommendations presented by AI, as well as taking into account the function of algorithmic monitoring of general judicial practice and deviations from it implemented by AI, we can talk about the risk of a certain bias on the part of judges in "cases falling out of the general statistical mass" and the difficulty of making decisions solutions that contradict the recommendations of AI[17].

At the same time, in our opinion, this approach is more constructive than completely blocking the development of AI, including from the perspective of predictive litigation in France[18].

Considering the experience of the United States, it should be noted that the legislative framework is defined at the level of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative 2020, according to the provisions of which the United States should ensure leadership in the field of AI, as well as maintaining the leading positions of the United States in the world in the development and use of reliable artificial intelligence systems in the public and private sectors[19].

Considering the use of AI in the judicial process, it is necessary to note the experience associated with the COMPAS (Correctional Defender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) system, which is actively used to assess the risk of recidivism in convicts applying for parole. This system, based on a large number of parameters, including gender, age, education, kinship and social environment, the article on which the defendant was convicted, the number of times prosecuted, etc. (more than 130 factors in the database), allows us to determine with a high degree of accuracy the potential risk of the defendant to society in the event of a positive decision by the judge.

In this regard, the case of the State of Wisconsin against Eric L. Loomis, where the Computer c program was used, is indicative[20]. According to the court decision, when assessing the identity of Eric L. The AI issued a negative opinion against the defendant. Within the framework of the process itself, a noteworthy factor is that in the future, within the framework of the appeal procedure, the legality of the use of this program was not disputed, but the incorrectness of its algorithms in relation to the assessment of the defendants was emphasized.

Considering the practice of using AI in the judicial process, it is impossible not to note the possibilities of modern AI technology for the preparation of statements of claim. In the case of Mescall v. Renaissance at Antiquity Slip Copy, the plaintiff's lawyer used ChatGPT to write his lawsuits[21]. In this particular lawsuit, the court ruled that "the use of artificial intelligence creates problems, raises ethical concerns and can lead to sanctions or fines."

In its conclusion, the court also referred to the practice of Mata v. Avianca, Inc. where it is noted that the legal adviser, on the basis of a conscious action, misleads the court when he provides non-existent judicial opinions with fake citations and links created by the ChatGPT artificial intelligence tool[22]. These actions are grounds for imposing appropriate sanctions against the party by the court.

In the case of Williams v. the City of Detroit, a U.S. citizen from Michigan in 2020 became a victim of such bias on the part of AI technology used in law enforcement[23].

The case began with Mr. Williams interpreting the call from the police department as a joke. The call from the police department is due to the fact that his identity was mistakenly identified using a facial recognition system, and he was charged with a crime he did not commit.

When the police detained Mr. Williams, they showed him a photo of the surveillance footage in question, and Mr. Williams commented to the police department that all black men looked the same in the "grainy" photos. Later it turned out that the facial recognition system was wrong and the police arrested the wrong man.

Considering the case of the use of AI in the framework of algorithmic analysis of personal data, it is necessary to refer to the case of Tice v. Amazon.com Inc. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Amazon, claiming that Alexa (a virtual assistant developed by Amazon and used in Amazon Echo and Amazon Echo Dot smart speakers) violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act by recording private conversations without the plaintiff's knowledge[24].

In this case, the court ruled that the recording by the AI was limited when they used the column, and there was no confidentiality agreement between Amazon and the plaintiff, according to which Amazon assumed responsibility for "damages" related to the use of the column. Thus, the court was unable to satisfy the plaintiff's claims due to the blurred line related to the user agreement and the privacy law. A similar practice was presented in Wilkoski's class action lawsuit against Amazon.com Inc. (illegal recording of speaker users' conversations), in connection with a violation of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act[25].

Considering the phenomenon of artificial intelligence in the judicial practice of Russia, it is impossible not to note the strengthening of the regulation of its use for public administration purposes.

As part of his latest address to the Federal Assembly, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin notes the significant role of AI technology for building optimal interaction between citizens, business and the state (Message from the President to the Federal Assembly. URL: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/73585 (date of application: 07/10/2024). This presentation also noted the updating of the strategic document in the field of AI regulation and the establishment of a regulatory horizon until 2030 (Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated October 10, 2019 No. 490 "On the development of artificial intelligence in the Russian Federation" (with amendments and additions).

The strategy stipulates that the main task of using AI is to automate the same type and repetitive production operations, including operations carried out in the field of administration of justice. Within the framework of this case, the starting point for the purposes of the trial is the Online Justice service being created, which allows you to submit documents to the court in electronic form, study the course of the trial and participate in it online, as well as receive electronic court documents signed with an electronic digital signature of the judge[26].

In addition, participation in the court session of the parties is possible using web conference technology due to the introduction of biometric authentication technology for participants in the process by face and voice. Within the framework of this service, automated creation of draft court decisions is expected based on the analysis of the text of the procedural document and case materials.

As part of the current legislation, since September 1, 2019, automated distribution of cases has been introduced in Russia (Article 18 of the APC of the Russian Federation, Article 14 of the CPC of the Russian Federation, Article 28 of the APC of the Russian Federation, Article 30 of the CPC of the Russian Federation). The system operates both in arbitration courts and in courts of general jurisdiction for a fair and impartial distribution of workload among judges.

Member of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation V.V. Momotov notes that "weak AI" is already actively used in the court system. AI helps to draft court decisions, verifies the completeness of the package of documents submitted in the case. And as part of the experimental application of AI in the Amur region, the plaintiff can formulate his statement using the appropriate technology[27]. At the same time, it is noted that a strong AI is unacceptable as a participant in the judicial process and only a judge has such necessary qualities as justice, respect for participants, decency, dignity, and respect for professional secrecy.

In the same context, it is necessary to note the position of the Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation V.D. Zorkin, who emphasizes that AI is able to implement actions leading to legally significant results and act as a bridge for the partial transition of justice to the online sphere. At the same time, the danger of the construction associated with granting AI personal rights by analogy with human rights is noted [28].

The author of the article supports the approach of V.D. Zorkin on the inadmissibility of equalizing AI technology in the status of a legal entity identical to the status of a person and a judge. At the same time, it should be noted that this technology, due to its potential autonomy and the formation of legally significant consequences, will require the development of fundamentally new approaches, including through the use of existing mechanisms or the formation of new constructs. Otherwise, in our opinion, a situation will be formed when the AI developer (or another person) intends to underestimate the autonomy of the specified technology in order to offset the risks of liability or complicate the procedure for establishing legally significant facts to determine the responsibility of individuals.

In this logic, a possible solution tool is the extension of the current structure of legal entities to AI[29] or the development of the concept of an electronic person for the purposes of public law[30].

The author supports the thesis presented in the article by G.A. Gadzhiev and E.A. Voynikanis that in modern legal science there is already a need to resolve legal disputes involving autonomous robots (robots with AI), and the possible technique of legal assimilation of AI to legal entities (as the most elastic structure) or quasi-legal entities is one of the ways effective consideration of these disputes [29].

An alternative approach to the development of the concept of an electronic person for the purposes of public law, presented by O.A. Yastrebov and M.A. Aksenova, is based on a legal fiction in the form of a certain organizational structure using AI, which is proposed to be fixed as an electronic person with subsequent classification for the purposes of public law. At the same time, the controversial nature associated with the definition of legal responsibility and the conditions for granting legal personality to an electronic person is also noted [30].

Based on the above, the following conclusions and suggestions can be formulated:

1. The introduction of artificial intelligence into the domestic judicial process is a prospect for the near future, which will require the formation of an appropriate legislative framework and judicial practice that takes into account the features of this technology in all technical aspects, addressing issues of reliability of the proposed recommendations and solutions of AI, as well as ensuring appropriate information security.

2. Possible areas of AI implementation within the framework of domestic judicial practice differ little from global trends, however, issues of assessing the evidence base from the AI side will require additional independent external expertise or the formation of a public institution that monitors AI technologies used in the field of public authority.

3. The starting point for the most effective and safe implementation of AI can be cases related to a simplified procedure for considering a case or those disputes that are of a high nature of reliable digital data.

4. Speaking about the possible legal personality of AI technologies for the purposes of the judicial process, at the moment it is necessary to note the inadmissibility of using a design identical to a person. However, a possible alternative solution may be a legal fiction through the prism of a legal entity or the creation of a new design of an electronic person.

References
1. Morhat, P. M. (2018). Opportunities, features and conditions for the use of artificial intelligence in legal practice. Court Administrator, 2, 8-12.
2. Morhat, P. M. (2018). Legal personality of artificial intelligence in the field of intellectual property law: civil legal problems.
3. Atabekov, A. R. (2023). Modeling approaches to AI integration into public relations in Russia as per comparative research of foreign countries’ experience. Bulletin of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Series: Legal Sciences, 27(3), 686-699.
4. Laptev, V. A., & Feyzrakhmanova, D. R. (2024). Application of Artificial Intelligence in Justice: Current Trends and Future Prospects. Human-Centric Intelligent Systems, 1-12.
5. OECD AI Policy observatory. Retrieved from https://oecd.ai/en/
6. Global toolkit on AI and the rule of law for the judiciary (UNESCO). Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387331?posInSet=1&queryId=3601a156-e097-4d9d-afca-d5b42552353c
7. Full Translation: China's 'New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan' (2017). Retrieved from https://www.newamerica.org/cybersecurity-initiative/digichina/blog/full-translation-chinas-new-generation-artificial-intelligence-development-plan-2017/
8. Stern, R. E., Liebman, B. L., Roberts, M. E., & Wang, A. Z. (2020). Automating fairness? Artificial intelligence in the Chinese courts. Colum. J. Transnat'l L., 59, 515.
9. China Judgement Online. Retrieved from wenshu.court.gov.cn
10. Chen, B. M., & Li, Z. (2020). How will technology change the face of Chinese justice? Colum. J. Asian L., 34, 1.
11. Cui, Y. (2020). Artificial intelligence and judicial modernization. Singapore: Springer.
12. Xin H. Judicial Reforms Under Xi Jinping. 2018. Retrieved from https://usali.org/usali-perspectives-blog/judicial-reforms-under-xi-jinping#:~:text=Upon%20its%20completion%20in%202017,judges%20from%20210%2C000%20to%20120%2C000
13. Wang, Z. (2021). China's E-Justice Revolution. Judicature, 105, 36.
14. Wang, N. (2020, November). “Black Box Justice”: Robot Judges and AI-based Judgment Processes in China’s Court System. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS) (pp. 58-65). IEEE.
15. China’s court AI reaches every corner of justice system, advising judges and streamlining punishment. Retrieved from https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3185140/chinas-court-ai-reaches-every-corner-justice-system-advising?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.ru%2Fmedia%2Fid%2F625d5ed7094ea767c28a72a4%2F62d10c3e0b1c2c43e663a7fb
16. Judges in China were required to use artificial intelligence.Retrieved from https://legal.report/sudej-v-kitae-obyazali-ispolzovat-iskusstvennyj-intellekt/
17. Wang, N., & Tian, M. Y. (2022). ‘Intelligent Justice’: AI Implementations in China’s Legal Systems. In Artificial Intelligence and Its Discontents: Critiques from the Social Sciences and Humanities (pp. 197-222). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
18. Connett, I. (2019). France Resists Judicial AI Revolution. Above the law. Retrieved from https://abovethelaw.com/legal-innovation-center/2019/06/10/france-resists-judicial-ai-revolution/
19. H.R.6216-National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6216
20. Loomis v. Wisconsin, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 2290 (2017). Retrieved from https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914acb1add7b0493473ec15
21. ERALD THOMAS MESCALL, Plaintiff, v. RENAISSANCE AT ANTIQUITY, et. al. Civil Action 3:23-CV-00332-RJC-SCR, 11-13-2023. Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/mescall-v-renaissance-at-antiquity
22. ROBERTO MATA, Plaintiff, v. AVIANCA, INC., Defendant. 22-cv-1461 (PKC), 06-22-2023. Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/mata-v-avianca-inc-2
23. Williams v. City of Detroit, Michigan, A Municipal Corporation (2:21-cv-10827). Retrieved from https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59815822/williamsv-city-of-detroit-michigan-a-municipal-corporation/
24. Tice v. Amazon.com, Inc. ¹. 20-55432, 02-19-2021. Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/tice-v-amazoncom-inc
25. Wilcosky v. Amazon.com, Inc. No. 19-cv-05061, 2021-02-05. Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/wilcosky-v-amazoncom-inc
26. A meeting was held on expanding citizens’ access to justice using digital technologies.Retrieved from https://www.vsrf.ru/press_center/mass_media/30377/
27. AI will not be able to replace a judge due to its callousness-Momotov. Retrieved from https://rapsinews.ru/digital_law_news/20231026/309332787.html
28. Valery Zorkin spoke out against giving artificial intelligence legal personality. Retrieved from https://www.advgazeta.ru/novosti/valeriy-zorkin-vyskazalsya-protiv-nadeleniya-iskusstvennogo-intellekta-pravosubektnostyu/
29. Gadzhiev, G. A., & Voynikanis, E. A. (2018). Can a robot be a subject of law? (search for legal forms to regulate the digital economy). Right. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 4, 24-48.
30. Yastrebov, O. A., & Aksenova, M. A. (2022). The influence of artificial intelligence on the administrative and legal regime of combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism: legal issues. Legal Policy and Legal Life, 3, 84-109.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the research in the article submitted for review is, as its name implies, the positioning of artificial intelligence in the judicial process. The author focused his attention on the comparative legal aspect of the problem. The methodology of the research is not disclosed in the text of the article. The relevance of the research topic chosen by the author is undeniable and justified by him as follows: "Previously, we studied the phenomenon of artificial intelligence (hereinafter - AI) in the context of the possible involvement of AI units in civil, arbitration, administrative, criminal proceedings, in court proceedings [1]. Considering the role and place of AI in the judicial process, we noted the possible participation of this technology at the stage of prudential control, information and documentary support of legal proceedings, provision of expert-analytical intellectual legal proceedings, linguistic and other analysis[2]. Considering the technology of artificial intelligence, it should be noted that this technology penetrates deeper into the sphere of public relations and arouses the corresponding interest both among researchers from a regional perspective[3, 4] and at the level of international organizations[5, 6]. In this regard, it is proposed to investigate the AI phenomenon in more detail in the context of the judicial process of the world's leading countries." The scientific novelty of the work is manifested in a number of the author's conclusions: "With all these advantages, it is impossible not to note certain disadvantages of AI technologies for the purposes of the judicial process. For example, current pilot programs testing facial and emotion recognition technology to confirm the reliability of readings are unreliable and technologically imperfect at the moment[13]. There are also issues of behavioral adaptation (which is formed in potential offenders) and uniformity of judicial practice, which is a source of processing for AI. In this situation, we understand that the AI analyzes the situation based on a certain model formed in the array it previously processed"; "Based on the above, the following conclusions and suggestions can be formulated: 1. The introduction of artificial intelligence into the domestic judicial process is a prospect for the near future, which will require the formation of an appropriate legislative framework and judicial practice that takes into account the features of this technology in all technical aspects, addressing issues of reliability of the proposed recommendations and solutions of AI, as well as ensuring appropriate information security. 2. Possible areas of AI implementation within the framework of domestic judicial practice differ little from global trends, however, issues of assessing the evidence base from the AI side will require additional independent external expertise or the formation of a public institution that monitors AI technologies used in the field of public authority," etc. Thus, the article makes a certain contribution to the development of domestic legal science and, of course, deserves the attention of potential readers. The scientific style of the research is fully sustained by the author. The structure of the work is quite logical. In the introductory part of the article, the scientist substantiates the relevance of his chosen research topic. In the main part of the work, the author analyzes the foreign experience of using artificial intelligence in the judicial process, as a result of which he formulates his proposals for optimizing the use of AI in the Russian process. The final part of the article contains conclusions based on the results of the study. The content of the article corresponds to its title and does not cause any particular complaints. However, it is not without drawbacks of a formal nature. So, the author writes: "Considering the role and place of AI in the judicial process, we noted the possible participation of this technology at the stage of prudential control, information and documentary support of legal proceedings, provision of expert-analytical intellectual legal proceedings, linguistic and other analysis[2]" - "information and documentary support". The scientist points out: "At the stage of filing documents, this system checks the criteria for accepting the case, an intellectual reminder of the payment of the court fee and the intellectual formation of procedural documents; at the stage of pre-trial analysis, it identifies the essence of claims, determines the position of the defense, identifies the facts and causes of the dispute, analyzes the case materials, verifies the completeness and reliability of evidence and prepares a plan for holding a court session with a preliminary list of issues; at the stage of the trial, establishes indisputable facts, the positions of the parties, conducts paperless cross-examination and prepares the minutes of the court session; at the stage of making a decision, AI helps in selecting the legislative framework, similar court cases, prepares a preliminary decision prepared by analogy with another case, as well as related documents (for which separate subsystems)" - "identifies the facts and causes of the dispute." Thus, the article needs additional proofreading - there are typos in it. The author writes: "V.V. Momotov, a member of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, notes that "weak AI" is already actively used in the court system" - the initials of the scientist in the text of the article are placed before his surname. The bibliography of the study is presented by 32 sources (scientific articles, analytical and statistical materials, materials of law enforcement practice, program documents, regulatory legal acts), including in English. From a formal and factual point of view, this is quite enough. The author managed to reveal the research topic with the necessary completeness and depth. There is an appeal to the opponents, but it is general in nature due to the focus of the study. The scientific discussion is conducted by the author correctly. The provisions of the work are justified to the appropriate extent and illustrated with examples. There are conclusions based on the results of the study ("Based on the above, the following conclusions and suggestions can be formulated: 1. The introduction of artificial intelligence into the domestic judicial process is a prospect for the near future, which will require the formation of an appropriate legislative framework and judicial practice that takes into account the features of this technology in all technical aspects, addressing issues of reliability of the proposed recommendations and solutions of AI, as well as ensuring appropriate information security. 2. Possible areas of AI implementation within the framework of domestic judicial practice differ little from global trends, however, issues of assessing the evidence base from the AI side will require additional independent external expertise or the formation of a public institution that monitors AI technologies used in the field of public authority. 3. The starting point for the most effective and safe implementation of AI can be cases related to a simplified procedure for considering a case or those disputes that are of a high character of reliable digital data"), have the properties of reliability, validity and undoubtedly deserve the attention of the scientific community. The interest of the readership in the article submitted for review can be shown primarily by specialists in the field of information law, procedural law, provided that it is slightly improved: disclosure of the research methodology, elimination of violations in the design of the work.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study. In the peer-reviewed article "Comparative legal study of the positioning of artificial intelligence in the judicial process", the subject of the study is the norms of law governing public relations in the field of application of artificial intelligence technologies in court proceedings. Research methodology. In the course of writing the article, modern research methods were used: general scientific and private (structural-functional, hermeneutical, comparative legal, etc.). The methodological apparatus consists of the following dialectical methods of scientific cognition: abstraction, induction, deduction, hypothesis, analogy, synthesis, and it is also possible to note the use of typology, classification, systematization and generalization. The relevance of research. The relevance of the topic of the article is beyond doubt, since the introduction of various information and communication technologies into the life of society requires appropriate legal regulation of new public relations, including the use of artificial intelligence in court proceedings. The ambiguity and inconsistency of legal norms in this area of public relations and their official interpretation require additional doctrinal developments on this issue in order to improve modern legislation and law enforcement. Scientific novelty. Without questioning the importance of previous scientific research, which served as the theoretical basis for this work, nevertheless, it can be noted that this article also contains some noteworthy provisions that have the character of scientific novelty, for example: "... The introduction of artificial intelligence into the domestic judicial process is a prospect of the near future, which will require the formation of the relevant legislative framework and judicial practice, taking into account the features of this technology in all technical aspects, addressing issues of reliability of the proposed recommendations and solutions of AI, as well as ensuring appropriate information security." The proposals developed by the author to improve legislation can be regarded as the practical significance of this study. Style, structure, content. The article is written in a scientific style using special legal terminology. The content of the article corresponds to its title. The requirements for the volume of the article are met. The article is logically structured, but not formally divided into parts. The material is presented consistently and clearly. As comments, we can note: 1. The introduction does not meet the requirements for this part of the scientific article. It seems that the author's statement "Previously we investigated the phenomenon of artificial intelligence (hereinafter - AI) in the context of the possible involvement of AI units in civil, arbitration, administrative, criminal proceedings, in court proceedings" cannot be an introduction to a scientific article; 2. In conclusion, it is necessary to formulate all the conclusions based on the results of the study; 3. The author separates administrative, arbitration, civil, criminal proceedings and judicial proceedings, which seems to be an incorrect statement. 4. The author's position on the issue of granting AI legal personality should be argued. The author only writes: "In this logic, a possible solution tool is the extension of the current structure of legal entities to AI[29] or the development of the concept of an electronic person for the purposes of public law[30]." Bibliography. The author has used a sufficient number of doctrinal sources, there are links to publications of recent years. References to sources are designed in compliance with the requirements of the bibliographic GOST. Appeal to opponents. The article presents a scientific controversy. Appeals to opponents are correct, decorated with links to the sources of publication. The special scientific weight of this article is given by an appeal to the foreign experience of legal regulation of public relations in the field of application of artificial intelligence technologies in legal proceedings. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The article "Comparative legal study of the positioning of artificial intelligence in the judicial process" submitted for review may be recommended for publication. The article is written on an urgent topic, it is characterized by scientific novelty and practical significance. A publication on this topic could be of interest to a readership, primarily specialists in the field of information law, administrative procedure, arbitration procedure, civil procedure and criminal procedure law, and also could be useful for teachers and students of law schools and faculties.

Third Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

A REVIEW of an article on the topic "Comparative legal study of the positioning of artificial intelligence in the judicial process." The subject of the study. The article proposed for review is devoted to topical issues of positioning artificial intelligence in the judicial process in various countries. The author examines the problems of using artificial intelligence for the purposes of legal proceedings. The specific subject of the study was, first of all, the opinions of scientists, data from open sources, and the provisions of legal acts. Research methodology. The purpose of the study is not stated directly in the article. At the same time, it can be clearly understood from the title and content of the work. The goal can be designated as the consideration and resolution of certain problematic aspects of the issue of the positioning of artificial intelligence in the judicial process in various countries. Based on the set goals and objectives, the author has chosen the methodological basis of the study. In particular, the author uses a set of general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, analogy, deduction, induction, and others. In particular, the methods of analysis and synthesis made it possible to summarize and share the conclusions of various scientific approaches to the proposed topic, as well as draw specific conclusions from the data contained in open sources. As noted in the article itself, "For this work, the research methodology is based on systemic, structural-functional, hermeneutical and comparative legal methods. Within the framework of the systemic and structurally functional method, the positions of states and law are studied in the context of the application of AI in the field of judicial proceedings, the function of law and legal responsibility, through the prism of decision-making by a judge using AI technology. The hermeneutic method is reflected in the analysis and interpretation of the positions of the courts regarding the admissibility of the use of AI technology in the judicial process. The comparative legal method (the method of legal comparative studies) is the main method within the framework of this article, since the analysis of current approaches related to the regulation of AI in foreign countries (China, USA, France) and Russia is actively used." The most important role was played by special legal methods. In particular, the author actively applied the formal legal method, which made it possible to analyze and interpret the norms of current legislation (first of all, the norms of the procedural legislation of the Russian Federation). For example, the following conclusion of the author: "Within the framework of current legislation, since September 1, 2019, automated distribution of cases has been introduced in Russia (Article 18 of the APC of the Russian Federation, Article 14 of the CPC of the Russian Federation, Article 28 of the APC of the Russian Federation, Article 30 of the CPC of the Russian Federation). The system operates both in arbitration courts and in courts of general jurisdiction for a fair and impartial distribution of workload between judges." The possibilities of a comparative legal research method related to the study of the experience of foreign countries, legislation and practice should be positively assessed. In particular, the following author's conclusion on the peer-reviewed article should be noted: "In the case of Williams v. the city of Detroit, a US citizen from Michigan in 2020 became a victim of such bias on the part of AI technology used in law enforcement. The case began with Mr. Williams interpreting the call from the police department as a joke. The call from the police department is due to the fact that his identity was mistakenly identified using a facial recognition system, and he was charged with a crime that he did not commit. When the police detained Mr. Williams, they showed him a photo of the surveillance footage in question, and Mr. Williams commented to the police department that all black men looked the same in the "grainy" photos. Later it turned out that the facial recognition system was wrong and the police arrested the wrong man." Thus, the methodology chosen by the author is fully adequate to the purpose of the study, allows you to study all aspects of the topic in its entirety. Relevance. The relevance of the stated issues is beyond doubt. There are both theoretical and practical aspects of the significance of the proposed topic. From the point of view of theory, the topic of positioning artificial intelligence in litigation in various countries is complex and ambiguous. It is difficult to argue with the author that "Over the past decade, there has been an active integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the sphere of public relations in various countries, strategic documents are being formed in the field of regulating the use of AI in various sectors of the economy and law[5]. In this logic, a trend is being formed and developing towards the implementation of justice using intelligent assistants, the development of a comprehensive regulatory approach to the safe implementation of this technology in the judicial sphere." Thus, scientific research in the proposed field should only be welcomed. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of the proposed article is beyond doubt. Firstly, it is expressed in the author's specific conclusions. Among them, for example, are the following conclusions: "1. The introduction of artificial intelligence into the domestic judicial process is a prospect for the near future, which will require the formation of an appropriate legislative framework and judicial practice that takes into account the features of this technology in all technical aspects, addressing issues of reliability of the proposed recommendations and solutions of AI, as well as ensuring appropriate information security. 2. Possible areas of AI implementation within the framework of domestic judicial practice differ little from global trends, however, issues of assessing the evidence base from the AI side will require additional independent external expertise or the formation of a public institution that monitors AI technologies used in the field of public authority. 3. The starting point for the most effective and safe implementation of AI can be cases related to a simplified procedure for considering a case or those disputes that are of a high nature of reliable digital data. 4. Speaking about the possible legal personality of AI technologies for the purposes of the judicial process, at the moment it is necessary to note the inadmissibility of using a design identical to a person. However, a possible alternative solution may be a legal fiction through the prism of a legal entity or the creation of a new design of an electronic person." These and other theoretical conclusions can be used in further scientific research. Secondly, the author offers generalizations of foreign experience, which may be useful to specialists in the field under consideration. Thus, the materials of the article may be of particular interest to the scientific community in terms of contributing to the development of science. Style, structure, content. The subject of the article corresponds to the specialization of the journal "Legal Research", as it is devoted to legal problems related to the legal aspects of the use of artificial intelligence. The content of the article fully corresponds to the title, since the author has considered the stated problems, and has generally achieved the purpose of the study. The quality of the presentation of the study and its results should be recognized as fully positive. The subject, objectives, methodology and main results of the study follow directly from the text of the article. The design of the work generally meets the requirements for this kind of work. No significant violations of these requirements were found. Bibliography. The quality of the literature used should be assessed on an average basis. The author actively uses the literature presented by authors from Russia and abroad (Morkhat P.M., Atabekov A.R., Laptev V.A., Feyzrakhmanova D.R., Chen B.M., Li Z., Wang Z. And others). I would like to note the active use of works by foreign authors in foreign languages, which is important in the context of the purpose of the study. Thus, the works of the above authors correspond to the research topic, have a sign of sufficiency, and contribute to the disclosure of various aspects of the topic. Appeal to opponents. The author conducted a serious analysis of the current state of the problem under study. The arguments and the author's point of view are given in relation to each cited work.
Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The conclusions are fully logical, as they are obtained using a generally accepted methodology. The article may be of interest to the readership in terms of the systematic positions of the author in relation to the stated problems. Based on the above, summing up all the positive and negative sides of the article, "I recommend publishing"