15th UN Crime Congress: HLS thematic meeting 8 – 27 September 2026

...but rather as a potential macroeconomic and financial sector risk. Consistent with its mandate, the IMF assesses these risks when they are relevant to domestic or external stability of a member's economy and brings together the macroeconomic, financial sector, legal and institutional perspective necessary to help countries design and implement reforms. More specifically, in our surveillance work, the annual Article IV health check that the IMF performs each year on all of its 191 member country economies, we discuss financial integrity risks when they may have significant consequences for the member's domestic or external stability. We do this precisely because of the impact that financial integrity issues can have on a country's stability. In the financial sector assessment program work that we do, we examine the exposure of financial institutions to illicit flows, the effectiveness of risk-based supervision, and the cross-border vulnerabilities that that jurisdiction may be exposed to. In IMF lending, we help support reforms that may be included where the financial integrity weaknesses in the country are critically to be addressed as part of stabilizing that member's economy. But diagnostics and policy advice are not enough on their own. Countries also need the legal frameworks, institutions, skills, and systems to implement these reforms. So working alongside country authorities and with the generous support of our donor partners, the IMF helps strengthen anti-money laundering laws, risk-based supervision, beneficial ownership frameworks, FIU capabilities, virtual asset regulation, and asset recovery. We also work to help build the capacity of supervisors, financial intelligence units, law enforcement, and other institutions to make sure that these systems work effectively in practice. This work recognizes that AML/CFT, governance, and anti-corruption reforms reinforce one another and support financial stability. Strong laws will not deliver results without capable, accountable institutions. while anti-corruption efforts are more effective when the authorities can detect illicit financial activity, trace its proceeds, and hold those responsible to account. So we are about to announce a new effort in this regard, which is a capacity development trust we call AMLAC, which brings together both our financial integrity work as well as the anti-corruption governance work the Fund has been doing, recognizing that stronger coordination and sustained capacity development is necessary to advance this fight to the next level. So in conclusion, my message is simple. Financial integrity creates trust and is essential for safeguarding financial stability. Effective enforcement changes incentives and sustained capacity development turns rules on paper into functioning effective institutions. By helping countries follow the money, strengthen governance and build effective systems, we help to make crime less profitable protect legitimate financial activity, and safeguard the stability of the financial system. Thank you.

Thank you. And the IMF indeed is a core partner of the United Nations in our work in providing technical assistance to support governments' financial integrity efforts. Look, fighting financial crime is underrepresented at the Crime Congress. It's underrepresented in our technical assistance program collectively. I think we divide the crime types into silos, and this is undermining our efforts. It probably undermines government's domestic efforts as well. We really need to begin to put together these financial linkages within transnational organized criminal groups, across transnational organized criminal groups, and terrorist groups, because that's the only way we are going to disrupt the vast criminal conspiracies that are now fully integrated into the financial sectors, into the banks, into the payment service providers, on the payments rails that we all use. We've probably each used them three or four times already today. So if there's one message I think that we take to the next crime Congress, it's that this issue needs more attention. Thank you.

Can you search just this? Play all songs of the Kapil Sharma Show.

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, distinguished panelists, for the interest of time, please allow me to start and apologize for my colleague of 30 years, His Excellency Judge Abdurrahman Al-Belushi, Undersecretary of Justice, Chairman of the National Organizing Committee. He will be a little bit delayed. He was doing his role together with His Excellency, the Minister of Justice, in hosting the heads of delegation for LAC. So we will, for the interest of time and the interest of the valuable and rather high volume of presentations we have today, we will start. Please allow me, on behalf of my colleagues from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, to welcome you all and to thank you very much for participating in this special event focusing on harnessing technology for the global good, the opportunities of digitalization, and the responsible use of AI to strengthen criminal justice systems. As you may know better than me, your excellencies, and as my distinguished panelists of today would definitely know better than me, since all of us now as human are totally dependent on technology. Who of us who is not attached to his smart devices at least two-thirds of the day? Now our work, our house, our life, everything is being digitalized. It is the time to take such opportunity here at the 15th Crime Congress on Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention to brainstorm together how we could have our criminal justice systems benefit the most of such available technology, but of course with the responsible, very regulated use of the AI to digitalize the criminal justice process. Without wasting a lot of your time, and since it is the due time for the criminal justice systems, since they became increasingly dealing with cyber crimes and with digital evidence and with technology related crimes where the technology were instrumentalized to allow the achievement of the criminal enterprise at the national, regional and global level that made it a part of the global global technology crimes that have actually driven us all to take this moment today to see together how we could guarantee a responsible use of AI to support the criminal justice system in such era of technology. Without wasting your time in introducing, please allow me to move immediately to our panelists today, my very dear colleague, Brigitte Strobl-Schaw, who is the acting director of our Division for Treaty Affairs and the, you would like to, please, and representing the Secretariat of the Congress in the same time. Brigitte.

Thank you very much, Hatem, and I don't want to push you off the podium, but it's maybe better at this time of day, it's better to speak standing up. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, dear participants, it's my pleasure to join you and to join Hatem in welcoming you to this high-level event on harnessing technologies for enhanced criminal justice. Our discussion today takes place at a time when crime is faster, more adaptive, and more complex than ever before. From cybercrime to organized crime, criminals are using technology and global networks to adapt and evolve at an unprecedented pace. At UNODC, we witness the increased demands that this places on law enforcement officials, as investigations now involve vast quantities of electronic evidence, and require cooperation between public and private sector entities for complex cross-border crimes that cause significant social and financial harm. And we must acknowledge that the agility and the innovation exhibited by criminal entities is not yet matched by efforts on the enforcement side. Malicious actors exploit technologies at velocities. Criminal justice efforts are yet to keep pace. Against this context, many countries are making significant strides in using technology to enhance the efficiency, accuracy, and accessibility of criminal justice services. Courts in some countries have adopted voice-to-text translation systems, AI-enabled text summary tools, and electronic case management systems. For criminal justice systems worldwide, these technologies hold extraordinary potential. When used responsibly, they can enhance efficiency, transparency and accountability. They can strengthen international cooperation through secure information sharing networks and expand access to justice through online legal information, legal aid services and victim support. With informed consent, remote hearings can reduce court backlogs and overcome geographic barriers. Digitalization of investigation and judicial records can reduce risks of corruption and abuse of power. Technology can even help detect victims of crime using satellite imagery to find migrants in distress at sea or image matching to identify victims of human trafficking and child sexual abuse. Yet with immense power comes profound responsibility. As the UN Secretary General has warned, the expansive application of technology entails serious risks, including those related to the unfettered use of surveillance technologies and the risk that artificial intelligence compromises the integrity of information systems and public trust in government institutions. The Secretary General's Global Digital Compact sets out requirements for an open, free, and secure digital future for all, anchored in human rights and aimed at achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Global resolutions, including the Kyoto Declaration, emphasize that harnessing technology's positive potential requires clear guidance and adequate safeguards against discrimination, privacy interference, and threats to human dignity. The efficiencies offered by digitalization must be matched by longstanding principles of open justice, oversight, and accountability. No nation can do this alone. International cooperation, knowledge sharing, and multi-stakeholder partnerships are critical. In this spirit, UNODC remains deeply committed to supporting member states in harnessing the responsible use of technology across all our mandates. from combating corruption and cybercrime to addressing maritime crime and terrorism. A priority area of our work is support for the ratification and implementation of the recently adopted UN Convention against Cybercrime. The first global treaty of its kind, the Convention against Cybercrime provides a comprehensive framework for international cooperation to combat cybercrime worldwide. Capacity building work is a vital part of UNODC's efforts to promote a safe digital ecosystem. The UNODC Cybercrime Training Center in Doha offers specialized training on AI and technology, equipping practitioners with the skills to investigate and counter technology-enabled crime. Complementing this, UNODC is working towards the development of an executive academy on AI for criminal justice professionals. with the aim of providing a practical understanding of AI capabilities, limitations, ethical and legal frameworks, and strategies for responsible operationalization of AI. Our shared challenge is also our shared opportunity. As we come together with a common goal of promoting criminal justice, let us use this event to exchange knowledge, forge partnerships, and reaffirm our joint commitment to a future where technology serves justice, where innovation upholds human dignity and where our digital transformation strengthens the rule of law. I very much look forward to the interventions of the esteemed panelists today and pass the floor back to my colleague, Hatem, who will moderate the session.

Thank you very much, Brigitte, for taking us through the perspective of the United Nations Office on Drugs and crime and how we could instrumentalize the responsible use of AI to support the justice system. Please allow me now to move also quickly to Her Excellency Mamou Louko Koebe, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development of South Africa, where Her Excellency is going to take us through the African experience on the digitalization of justice. Your Excellency, floor is yours.

Can I proceed from here?

We are all at your disposal, madam, please.

Thank you very much. Thank you, facilitator, moderator of our session, excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen. South Africa welcomes this timely discussion on harnessing technology for the global good and promoting the responsible use of artificial intelligence to strengthen criminal justice systems. This conversation is particularly relevant as the international community seeks to accelerate crime prevention, criminal justice, and the rule of law in the digital age. Technology is transforming the way governments serve citizens and how justice institutions operate. When used responsibly, digital tools can improve efficiency, increase transparency, reduce delays, strengthen accountability, and expand access to justice, particularly for the vulnerable and marginalized group. For South Africa, technology is a means to advance constitutional values and ensure access to justice, which is equal. Through our integrated justice system, we are connecting institutions across criminal justice value chain, improving information sharing, strengthening coordination, and modernizing service delivery. This starts from police, going into the investigators, going into your prosecutors, the magistrate or judicial officers, until at the point of correctional services. Digital case management systems, electronic information exchanges, online court services, and the digitalization of justice processes are helping us build a more responsive and effective justice system. We are also exploring how emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, can support administrative efficiency, improve data analysis, identify crime trends, and enhance decision-making. These innovations have the potential to strengthen criminal justice institutions and improve public service delivery. In this regard, South Africa has established a fusion centre, a multidisciplinary and collaborative effort by all the corruption-fighting agencies, which follows an intelligence-driven approach in investigating corruption, and it uses comprehensive data and information analysis to fight corruption. This extension also goes to our institution, which is the National Prosecuting Authority, that has been provided with a digital centre that allows them to be able to collect data and analyse it so that they have successful prosecution in their work. However, we agree that technology must always serve the people, not replace them. Artificial intelligence must be governed by clear ethical principles and human rights safeguards. Human oversight, transparency, accountability, fairness, and respect for privacy must remain central. Algorithms cannot replace judicial independence, nor should technology reinforce discrimination or limit access to justice. Public trust in our institution depends on ensuring that technological innovation remains firmly anchored in the rule of law and respect for human dignity. We must also acknowledge the digital divide that continues to affect many developing countries. Limited infrastructure, connectivity challenges, skills shortages, and resource constraints prevent many nations from fully benefiting from digital transformation. If these gaps are not addressed, technology risks become another source of inequality globally. South Africa therefore supports strengthened international cooperation, capacity building, and technological assistance or technical assistance to ensure that all countries can harness technology safely and effectively. We commend the efforts of UNODC to support digitization, knowledge sharing, and responsible innovation in criminal justice system. And we welcome the initiative that promotes global expertise on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. Excellencies, technology is also transforming the nature of crime itself. Criminal networks increasingly exploit artificial intelligence, encrypted communication, cryptocurrencies, social media platforms, and other digital technologies to facilitate cybercrime, fraud, trafficking, corruption, and transnational organized crime. These evolving threats require justice institutions to continuously modernize their capabilities and strengthen international cooperation. No country can address these challenges alone. As we embrace innovation, we must ensure that technology advances inclusion, strengthen justice, and promote sustainable development. Our collective objective should be to harness innovation in a manner that protects human rights, expands access to justice, and delivers meaningful benefits for all the people. As South Africa prepares to host our international conference on access to justice in November, we look forward to sharing experiences and learning from global partners on how technology can support more access to justice, making it accessible, people-centered, and resilient justice system. Let us work together to ensure that digital transformation becomes a force for justice, equality, and human and dignity. Thank you very much, Program Director.

Thank you very much, Your Excellency, for such very valuable yet very innovative reflections on the innovation and digitalization of justice, yet enhancing the access to justice. And I join your call. Now, please allow me to move to His Excellency Dr. Kazembe Kazembe, Minister of Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage of Zimbabwe. His Excellency, the Minister is going to share with us Zimbabwe's perspective on the opportunities and challenges that associates with digital information. Your Excellency.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Your Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, the digital transformation of justice and public administration systems presents an important opportunity for member states to strengthen the rule of law, improve institutional efficiency, and make justice delivery systems more accessible, transparent, and responsive. As digital technologies continue to develop rapidly, member states are increasingly exploring electronic justice systems, electronic case management, automated administrative systems or processes rather, and data-driven decision-making. Within the justice sector, digital transformation can contribute to more efficient case management, secure electronic filing, improved access to legal information, and greater coordination among courts, prosecution services, law enforcement agencies, and other relevant institutions. Properly designed digital systems can reduce administrative burdens, improve the management of judicial workloads, and facilitate access to justice, particularly for individuals who may face geographical or procedural barriers. In discussing the digital transformation of justice systems, it is important not to begin the analysis only when a matter reaches the courts. Justice is a continuum, not a courtroom event. It begins much earlier, when a crime is reported, when the police attend the scene, when evidence is identified and preserved, when witnesses and suspects are interviewed, and when an investigation docket is compiled. The Zimbabwean experience provides an opportunity to view digital transformation as an end-to-end criminal justice process, rather than simply digitalization of courts. This continuum is evident in the gradual digitalization across different stages of the justice process. At the back end of the criminal justice chain, the Zimbabwe Republic Police, the ZRP, is responsible for receiving crime reports, conducting investigations, managing evidence, and preparing case dockets for prosecution through a case management system. This is significant because from a justice system perspective a case does not originate in the courtroom it begins with the police record as I alluded to earlier on all the way to until a docket is produced the judicial service commission the JSC subsequently extended digital transformation further along the Justice continuum through the integrated electronic case management system the IECMS the digitalization of courts through the IECMS aims to make them more efficient and transparent in advancing national justice. Some of the features of the EICMS include e-filing platform, which allows electronically signed and stamped documents to be submitted electronically, online payments, virtual court platforms, which allow courts to hold hearings remotely, electronic calendar, which is the e-calendar, which allows for the scheduling and tracking of all court events and tasks online. Member states may strengthen these efforts through several measures. Firstly, governments can invest in secure, interoperable digital infrastructure while ensuring that systems used by courts and public institutions meet appropriate standards for reliability, accessibility, and cybersecurity. Secondly, member states can strengthen digital literacy and technical capacity among judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officials, civil servants, and other relevant personnel. Training should address not only the use of technology, but also ethical, legal, and security considerations. Thirdly, member states can develop appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks for electronic records, digital evidence, electronic signatures, data governance, and other emerging areas. Such frameworks should provide legal certainty while protecting fundamental rights and procedural safeguards. Fourth, governments can establish mechanisms to foster cooperation among public institutions, technology experts, academia, civil society, and the private sector while maintaining appropriate public oversight of critical justice and administrative functions. International cooperation also remains very essential. Member States have different levels of technological development and institutional capacity. UNODC and other relevant United Nations entities can support Member States through technical assistance, capacity building, knowledge exchange, training programs, and the sharing of good practices. Cooperation can be particularly valuable for developing countries and countries seeking to modernize justice and public administration systems while addressing resource constraints. Distinguished delegates, the rapid development of artificial intelligence, machine learning, blockchain, biometric technologies, cloud computing, big data analytics, and other emerging technologies is creating significant opportunities for member states. However, at the same time, these technologies introduce complex legal, ethical, security, and institutional challenges that require careful consideration. One major opportunity on the one hand is the potential to improve the efficiency of public institutions. Artificial intelligence and data analytics can assist institutions in processing large volumes of information, identifying administrative patterns, supporting resource allocation, and reducing repetitive tasks. In justice systems, appropriately governed technological tools may assist with administrative functions such as document organization, scheduling, translation, and information retrieval. Such technologies can allow public officials to devote greater attention to task safeguards. However, these opportunities are accompanied by substantial challenges. A key concern is the protection of personal data and privacy. Justice and public administration systems frequently process highly sensitive information. The adoption of advanced technologies therefore requires strong safeguards concerning data collection, storage, access, sharing, retention and deletion. Cybersecurity presents another major challenge. Increasing dependence on interconnected digital systems can create vulnerabilities to cyber attacks, unauthorized access, data breaches and disruption of essential public services. Member states should therefore strengthen cybersecurity capabilities, establish risk management frameworks, and develop appropriate contingency and recovery mechanisms. The use of artificial intelligence also raises questions regarding transparency, accountability, bias, and human oversight. Automated systems may produce inaccurate or discriminatory outcomes if they are trained on incomplete or biased data. In justice-related contexts, particular care is required when technological systems would affect individual rights or access to justice. Human decision makers should retain appropriate responsibility and oversight, and individuals should have access to meaningful mechanisms for review and remedy where automated systems affect them. Another challenge is the digital divide, which has been mentioned by my neighbor here and at home, both here and at home, the Minister from South Africa. Differences in infrastructure, financial resources, technical expertise, and digital literacy can result in unequal capacity among Member States to adopt emerging technologies. Within countries, similar inequalities may affect rural communities, vulnerable populations, and individuals with limited digital access. International cooperation and capacity building can help reduce these disparities. Member States may address these challenges through a balanced and phased approach. This can include conducting technology impact assessments before deployment, establishing clear accountability mechanisms, investing in cybersecurity and workforce development, and developing ethical and legal frameworks that correspond to national circumstances and international obligations. Governments can also promote research and innovation while ensuring that technological development remains consistent with human rights, privacy, due process, and the rule of law. UNODC can contribute by facilitating dialogue among member states, supporting technical assistance and capacity building, disseminating relevant knowledge and good practices, and helping countries strengthen their institutional capacity to respond to technology-enabled crime. Greater international cooperation can also help Member States address the transnational nature of cybercrime and other technology-facilitated crimes. In conclusion, emerging technologies should be viewed neither solely as risks nor solely as solutions. Their impact will depend on how they are designed, governed, implemented, and monitored. Member States should seek to harness technological innovation by ensuring that security, human rights, accountability, inclusion, and the rule of law remain fundamental principles. I thank you.

Your Excellency, Mr. Kazembe, thank you very much for your very viable, yet very wise considerations on the opportunities. And I would like to respond on behalf of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. We appreciate your call for our support in capacity building and enriching the practice and experience sharing among member states and enhancing the international cooperation to actually look at the opportunities associated with the digitalization of justice. And I promise you that Brigitte, myself, and the rest of the colleagues will be taking this call forward. If you Allow me, waiting for His Excellency Judge Al-Blushi to arrive, I would like to give the floor to one of my best friends and colleagues, His Excellency Judge Mohamed Youssef, the Assistant Minister of Justice from Egypt, to give his insights regarding the digitalization on of national priorities. Your Excellency, Judge Mohammed, the floor is yours.

Mr. Moderator, they change how justice is delivered, not who delivers it. Yet, artificial intelligence is qualitatively different. AI does not merely transmit information. It analyzes, interprets, and generates outputs. They raises distinct questions of accuracy, bias, explainability, and accountability. A digitized court is not necessarily an AI-enabled court. This being said, Allow me as well to highlight concisely the international approach of the use of AI in the area of the rule of law and justice. In December 2025, the UNESCO issued its guidelines for the use of AI systems in courts and tribunals, the first global ethical framework in this field. Its central message is unequivocal. AI must remain assistive, never substitutive. The final decision and the responsibility for it must always rest within human oversight. This is also reinforced by the UNESCO Global Toolkit on AI and the rule of law, and by the UN's comprehensive framework, the Global Digital Compact. Egypt fully embraces these principles. Then what's Egypt's perspective? Egypt applies sequential and principled approach. We began with infrastructure, interconnection, and digitization. Then, and only then, did we integrate AI under the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. First, the Ministry of Justice have developed litigation using AI to convert speech text with accuracy amounting to 96% as well subject to human review and operating offline to protect data and security. In 2026, we launched the unified digital justice strategy comprising all judicial bodies in three consecutive phases. First, institutional building, digitization, and then we have launched a project to deliver notary services remotely as well, using digital identity and facial recognition, and AI analysis of audio-visual responses to ensure authentication. On capacity building, we are training justice professionals. More than 1,100 justice personnel have been trained only in the last year. on AI applications, ethics and legislation. In all of these, the final decision remains under human oversight. To conclude, digitization and technology have transformed the infrastructure of justice. AI is beginning to transform its analytical dimensions. The first is a matter of efficiency. The second is a matter of judgment, demanding a different order of scrutiny. The future is not merely about adding AI applications. It requires an institutional and legal framework and governance, defining scope, risks, data handling, and controls on AI in matters affecting rights and freedoms. Let's lose our ties and be more casual. The elephant in the room is AI and human rights. Above all, It requires affirming that responsibility for judicial decisions remain exclusively human. Egypt stands ready to share its experience and to learn from others as we harness technology for the global good. Thank you for your attention.

Excellency, Judge Muhammad, I thank you very much for your valuable intervention. I'd like to also tell you that your call was heard. Me and my colleagues will be more than glad to work very closely with your distinguished government, hoping where it's possible to enhance the digitalization of justice. And now, with another due apology to my colleague and very distinguished Ambassador of Costa Rica to United Arab Emirates for the misunderstanding that I had, both as a representative of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and as a colleague, a viewer, and a co-diplomat in the United Arab Emirates. Please, Your Excellency, accept my apology. And I am so glad to offer you the floor, or better, if you can, please join us on the podium to deliver the intervention of her Excellency of his Excellency the Minister of Justice. Excellency, Ambassador, the floor is yours.

Thank you. I will be speaking in Spanish if you don't mind.

Your Excellencies, distinguished co-panelists, ministers, Deputy Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I'm taking the floor on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Peace of Costa Rica, Gabriela Aguilar Vargas, who, for reasons beyond his control, is unable to be with us today, and conveys to you cordial greetings. For Costa Rica, it is a real honor to participate in this dialogue on digital transformation, artificial intelligence, and criminal justice. As a point of departure, we focus on people, their rights, and dignity. The tools that strengthen our institutions are equally used by criminal organizations when they develop new criminal modalities. And that is why technology must support justice. It cannot replace justice. First of all, in Costa Rica, we have a national artificial intelligence strategy for 2024 to 2027 to guide the ethical, safe, and responsible use of these technologies. In criminal justice, artificial intelligence can serve to analyze information, identify criminal patterns, strengthen investigations, and better manage public resources. The Ministry of Justice and Peace is working alongside with our science and innovation institutions to explore the use of private 5G networks and artificial intelligence in the penitentiary system. We are seeking to ensure safe internal communications, issuing real-time warnings, ensuring risk analysis, and digital twinning to support planning. We are moving forward step by step. We start with diagnostics, we follow with experimentation, and only then do we develop projects. Secondly, we must overcome the compartmentalization of our systems. Strengthening these systems will in turn strengthen administration, safety and security within penitentiary centers. It will improve the way we handle information and will support the classification and monitoring of our detainees. Decisions will be more timely and traceable. Technology must also be harnessed to serve education, training, social rehabilitation and social reintegration. modern penitentiary system will guarantee safe custody and will provide for opportunities to reduce recidivism. Thirdly, this undertaking requires human oversight, due process, transparency, data protection, and respect for fundamental rights. No country on its own can tackle these challenges. What we need is more safe exchanges of information, transfer of knowledge, training, as well as international technical assistance. We encourage the UNODC to further promote peer learning and would ask the UNODC to ensure that its future Executive Academy on Artificial Intelligence prioritizes justice operators among developing countries. Your Excellencies, what we need is a technology that will serve a more humane, safe, transparent, and effective justice. In Costa Rica, we stand ready to share our experience and to enhance international cooperation to ensure that artificial intelligence serves justice, security, and human dignity of individuals. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Your Excellency, for your intervention. Please extend our thanks and gratitude to His Excellency Gabriel Ogelar Vargas, Minister of Justice and Peace of Costa Rica, for having made this intervention to this room through you. And please, Your Excellency, accept our apology once for the misunderstanding we appreciate very much the intervention of Costa Rica now please allow me to take this once more to another distinguished colleague Mr. Pascal Parache, the National Financial Prosecutor of France, who will deliver remarks on behalf of His Excellency, the Minister of Justice, and share with us the French experience in the responsible use of artificial intelligence within the justice sector. X3, the floor is yours.

Ministers, ladies and gentlemen, I'll be speaking French. First, allow me to thank the UAE for organizing this Congress and the high-quality exchanges headed by UNODC on major topics for all. Today, I will be sharing with you initiatives undertaken by France in the area of development and use of AI. Digital development in the French judiciary and today, artificial intelligence, are major concerns, and this has been the case for several years now. This being the case, the Ministry of Justice has significantly sped up the development of these technologies in anticipation of a digital shock. As expectations are quite high, pooled efforts are necessary. Without a doubt, this has to go alongside ongoing oversight and wariness with respect to the safeguards and limits to have in place. The first lesson learned is that artificial intelligence is already used before any public policy decision. A UNESCO study from 2024, 96 countries, found that 40% of them were using generative AI. and only 14% of them had been within the ministry was taken by us from the very beginning. This 300 AI ambassadors and an internal committee of 800 agents to implement these lines that we are currently making our efforts in France to create a portal for those with cases in the courts. This transparency enhances in turn that such that suspects are able to exercise their rights. And then I said efficiency. This is a major challenge. The judiciary system is facing at once high expectations and requirements, but also the changing nature of crime, which then expect that we would adopt state-of-the-art tools in our turn. We are being judged in our ability to combat crime in all of its forms and manifestation. But let us not forget that for our citizens, the idea is looking at the entire spectrum of crimes, from the most grave ones to the lesser infractions. And that is why digitalization of proceedings and communication with lawyers and investigative services should help in speeding up the treatment of the processing of cases. In France, the development of digital criminal proceedings is thus a top priority. We have a paperless goal, going paperless. This means centralizing the data processing centers to identify links between proceedings and perpetrators across France. For legal professionals, this also means facilitated access to tools for following current proceedings. By way of example, a French prosecutor in daily direct contact with investigators with respect, then has hands down more than 100 decisions per day on the cases at hand. That means that we need archiving tools as well as follow up on cases and decisions.

But that's not all.

That is why the Ministry of Justice made major progress in 2026 in implementing these projects. Deployment of AI in 2026 also started in a pilot phase with 10,000 users currently using an AI generalist tool used by the Ministry. There is another tool so as to prepare summaries for hearings. These are two pilot projects. They both seek to identify and clarify the needs for users. Moreover, the ministry from January and then following that, wariness is necessary. We obviously need a security-based, legally binding framework for the use of AI in our work. The ethics framework is quite clear. The ministry will be using these tools, but will ensure that they not undermine the judiciary's independence. And finally, external oversight is necessary, and we have started this as well. It is through an independent body. which started its work under the Ministry of Justice in May 2026, working in particular on the summary tool's impact on confidence or trust in the justice and independencies. Ladies and gentlemen, by way of conclusion, we have a hefty challenge ahead.

Afin d'éviter les écueils et de renforcer notre capacité collective à lutter contre la délinquance et à bâtir la confiance dans nos institutions. Je vous remercie pour votre attention.

Thank you very much, Mr. Prus, for your remarks. I think that we are hearing now really expert views on the complexities of the risks.

Excellencies, distinguished delegates, Madam Moderator, ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure today that I have been extended opportunity to participate in this high-level segment of thematic meeting. I think at the outset I can quite confidently say that Thailand shares many of the same sentiments, and we recognize the opportunities and threats similar opportunities and threats being presented by the use and adoption of digital technology and AI in the field of the criminal justice system. We welcome the opportunity to share Thailand's experiences and perspectives on how technology can contribute to a more efficient, transparent, accessible, and people-centered criminal justice system. Thailand recognizes that digitalization and artificial intelligence are transforming the criminal justice landscape. The technologies offer significant opportunities, but their value ultimately depends on how responsibly, inclusively, and accountably they are used. Please allow me to highlight three aspects of Thailand's experience. Firstly, technology can enhance efficiently efficiency and access to justice. Thailand has been advancing digital transformation of its justice system, including through the development of digital court services and electronic processes. Digital tools can reduce administrative burdens, facilitate access to information and services, and enable justice institutions to respond more efficiently to the needs of the public while reducing the need for unnecessary physical processes. More recently, Thailand has also pursued artificial intelligence for related work, including tools to assist with legal and case-related information, document processing, transcription, and other administrative functions. However, in our pursuit, we have also had to exercise a measure of caution. These developments illustrate an important principle. Technology should augment the capacity of justice institutions and justice professionals rather than replace human responsibility and judgment. Which brings me nicely to the second point, which I am about to express, which is responsible innovation must remain firmly grounded in the rule of law and human rights. Thailand attaches particular importance to ensuring that technological innovation does not come at the expense of fairness, transparency, privacy, process or equal access to justice. Artificial intelligence can assist justice institutions in processing information and improving efficiency. At the same time, however, they present risks related to accuracy, bias, explainability, data protection, and unequal access to technology. Therefore, appropriate safeguards, human oversight, accountability, and continuous capacity building are essential. For instance, may I also add that the judiciary in Thailand has recently issued a very strict guideline on the use of AI in the judicial context, which essentially bars the use of AI to replace judicial discretion when making decisions on cases. In our view, the question should not simply be whether a particular technology can be deployed. We should ask whether it is appropriate for the particular justice function, whether it is reliable and transparent, whether adequate safeguards are in place and whether its use strengthens rather than undermine the public trust in justice. The human-centered approach is particularly important where technology may affect fundamental rights or the outcome of judicial proceedings. Thirdly, technology can strengthen the ability of criminal justice systems to respond to emerging forms of crime. Thailand has experienced firsthand the growing importance of digital evidence in criminal investigations and prosecutions. As cyber-related crime and transnational organized crime increasingly exploit digital technology, law enforcement and justice authorities need the capacity to reflect, identify, collect, preserve, and analyze digital evidence efficiently. Thailand, therefore, emphasizes the importance of technical capabilities in digital forensics expertise information sharing and international cooperation. At the same time, the emergence of AI enabled criminal activities demonstrate that technological innovation can be used not only for public good, but may also be used by criminal actors. This reinforces the need for international cooperation and for criminal justice institutions to continuously develop their knowledge and technological capabilities. Excellencies, Thailand believes that no country can navigate this transformation alone. Responsible digital transformation requires partnerships among governments, justice institutions, the technology sector, academia, civil society, and international organizations. We therefore welcome the concept note's emphasis on multi-stakeholder partnerships and exchange of good practices. For Thailand, international cooperation should not only focus on sharing technological solutions, It should also facilitate the sharing of standards, safeguards, expertise, lessons learned and practical experiences, including experiences where technology has not produced the expected results. Such exchanges can help ensure that technological innovation remains inclusive and responsive to the different capacities and circumstances of Member States. Thailand also recognizes the important role of UNODC in facilitating this process. including through capacity building, technical assistance, and platforms for member states and relevant stakeholders to exchange knowledge and practical experience. Thailand's experience leads us to a simple but important principle. Technology should serve justice, and justice should remain centered on people. Digitalization and AI can help us build justice systems that are more efficient, transparent, and accessible. But technology itself is not the objective. Our objective is to strengthen the rule of law, improve access to justice, protect rights, and ultimately better serve our people. Thailand therefore stands ready to continue sharing its experiences and to work with member states, UNODC and all relevant stakeholders to promote a digital transformation of criminal justice that is responsible, ethical, inclusive and firmly grounded in human rights and the rule of law. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Tassirika. Very insightful remarks that you have shared, as have all our distinguished speakers. I particularly was taken by this phrase that technology is not the objective, but that technology is to focus on justice and justice is to focus on people. This sounds like a good plan to me. Thank you very much. And with that, we would now transition to the final but important part of our high level event in which we have some questions for panelists. And we have three panelists that have kindly agreed to answer a couple of questions for us. And with this, I'll take a moment to introduce Dr. Ebtissam Al-Masri, who is executive director at Advisory Technology Affairs here in Abu Dhabi. Welcome. Thank you so much for joining us. And if I may start with the first question for you, Dr. Ebtissam. Many countries, as we have heard, are at different stages in their digital transformation. Some are building digital case management systems and others are introducing AI enabled tools. Some are developing regulatory and governance frameworks and others are not there yet. But what has been the most important lesson that you have learned from your experience so far?

First of all, good evening. And thank you for joining us today, our esteemed guests, and welcome in your home country, United Arab Emirates. It is my privilege to join my esteemed also colleagues in this panel discussing one important factor is how AI or digital will provide better justice for people. And if there is one lesson, it is important to highlight is how you can build a governance system that ensure transparency, traceability, values, ethics at the core of these AI enabled system. And having built advanced AI systems by myself with my team and also spinning it in the market, the governance starts with understanding the capability of the system that you are doing, also the limitation of that system, and also the authority. And with the capability is what the system can do for you in the justice system. And limitation, when the system can fail. And authority comes when how much you allow the system to decide on behalf of the human. And governance connects all the three together. And we when you are trying to build any advanced AI model, you start with the data. How much the data is diversified in training that system. The furnace should be in the center core of building these systems. And also governance continue through the evaluation and also deployments. And what the system is permitted to do.

Thank you very much. Some excellent insights there, I think, on understanding at the outset what the system is capable of and what it is not capable of, because I think this is important in keeping in check those expectations. Thank you so much. And I wonder if I might extend that same question to you, Mr. Prush, in terms of your experience from France?

I think.

Think it's an essential question that you've just asked. What is the key lesson? What is the key lesson, not the key lessons? If we were to focus on the key lesson, in particular, in terms of our expectations, which I touched upon earlier, in establishing a tool that helps instill trust, confidence among our co-citizens in terms of respect for freedoms, but also in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of the judiciary. This issue of trust requires a well-planned pilot process. And I think that was also something that was raised by previous speakers, in particular, avoiding the fragmentation, a dispersal. That's what it's about, avoiding fragmentation in order to make use, full use of the array of tools available to all stakeholders who may not necessarily exchange information amongst each other and who may not necessarily be involved at the strategic planning phase and which therefore may not offer sufficient safeguards for respecting fundamental freedoms in keeping with the actions being undertaken. So I think that there's a real need to have a piloting phase that is very well planned, very well structured, with clearly defined goals from the outset to have clear guardrails in keeping with well-defined priorities. And once again, the main lesson would once again to be avoiding an overlapping, a fragmentation of tools with all of the risks that that would entail.

Thank you. It's really excellent, I think, to hear about this deliberative and sort of intentional approach to the use of artificial intelligence and new technologies in justice, because I think that, you know, in the world where these technologies are developed, there is a sort of an ethos that we can go fast with things. And so I think that it is important for us to come together and remind ourselves of the importance of taking a sequential approach. The ambassador from Costa Rica spoke about that. And also now this emphasis again on piloting and testing with a view to trust with the community. So this is very important. Thank you. And Mr. Tasarika, could you please share your insights on that same question? Thank you.

Yes, thank you very much. Whenever we address the question of using digital tools and AI within the government, it's almost like addressing a moving target. Today, we think that this is the way to best serve our people. The next day, people's expectations differ and they move on, as well as the capabilities of technology itself keeps them moving forward. And we don't know where it's going to end. Perhaps it's never going to end. It's this infinite sort of spectrum which we're moving on. I think the key question here is, how do we best serve the people using technology? In our government, we're trying to conduct this exercise where, from actually thinking of only what we think is best for the people, to actually going to ask the people themselves, what are their needs, what are their legal needs, and we're in the process of designing ways of identifying people's legal needs. And I think that will fit in well with how we actually adopt technology. As I said, technology is rather flexible, and it has quite a large or unlimited capability. In the end, we try to adapt technology into the specific needs of the people. For instance, access to the justice system. At first, we opened up electronic means of applying for assistance and aid for funds or financial aid within the justice system, but then we realized that in certain areas, people don't have access to these technologies. Then we have to adapt and change, try to meet those people's needs specifically. The second question there is trust. It's always been a challenging question for us, government administrators, how do we actually make people trust us? Our first initial impression is that we think that if we perform our functions properly in line with rule of law and all government regulations, people will trust us. But we found out maybe a little bit too late that that may not always be the case. Trust, we found, is sometimes associated with both perception and experience. So in that sense, we have to go back to drawing board and think, how do we use AI technology to build this, a better perception and a better experience for the people within the justice system? And in doing so, we identified certain areas where technology and AI has actually assisted us in building and fostering that trust. For instance, by being very transparent in our procedures, having clear guidelines, having clear factors being pointed out on how discretions are being exercised, and having a very convenient and easy to track system for all processes within government. So in brief, in conclusion, I think, as I said, this is a moving target. So I would say that in our experience, we try to identify people's needs and try to incorporate technology in such a way that would best foster the public trust in our institutions. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your response. I think that this question of trust is a very important one, and I think that with that, I'll transition now to a follow-up question for Dr. Ebertusson. Public trust, arguably the most important currency of any justice system. From your perspective, what are the safeguards that are needed to ensure that AI can strengthen accountability and fairness rather than undermine those important principles?

First, allow me to say that I am pleased to be here to witness that many members of states, we are here today at this time to discuss how we can ensure how we can build a trustable system to better serve the people. And you can hear frequently public trust, justice, better justice system, diversification, finance, many things. And when it comes to me, trust is how you feel comfortable dealing with the person in front of you or the system that you have built. You will use that system to decide your liberty. Are we ready for this? And can we trace back the decision that has been made by the system? So you can basically judge the system by four main things. First, the values and the ethics. Different nations have their different ethics and values. You must engineer your values and your ethics into that system to make sure that it align with the traditions that you have to provide better service for your nation, for your own people. And second thing also is fairness, because the system can be very good if you deploy it within a certain group, but certainly can be an outlier in their judgment and can misalign. It can have a bias around certain group of people. So fairness is the second thing also you need to consider. And the third one, as I mentioned earlier, transparency and Traceability. And when we are building these systems, it can just give you an answer. And if you fail to trace back the decision that has been made, who override that system? What rules is considered there? What models has been used? What version also has been used to better give you that decision? This is something also very important. And the fourth one, and the most important one, is the security and technical assurance. We are engineers, we are building these systems based on our understanding, based on our technical capabilities. The member states, the government also bodies should ensure that these systems are engineered with the safety and the security guardrails that we have. Maybe in the recent weeks, we heard a lot about the jailbreak of some of the frontier models. They are entering a third party systems. So how I can deploy that system within our organization and make sure that it is secure, safe, and align with our standards. standards, safety and also guardrails also that we just put inside it.

Excellent. Thank you for those reflections. And I think that what you have touched on there around explainability, you know, we talk about transparency, but we need also to be talking about explainability, traceability, auditability. And I think that in the justice space, this is very crucial because if we think about the right to an appeal, for example, how can one appeal a decision that is made through the use of artificial intelligence if we've got no idea how that works? So I think that we do need to reach a point where we can have better access to understanding how these systems work and be able to trace those issues. If you will indulge me, I would like to open the floor to any questions that there may be from our participants in the room. I think we would have time for one, maybe two questions, and then, advance notice to all panellists, I would like you to just have your final word. I think we probably have about 30 to 40 seconds, but your key takeaway for participants, so that's your advance warning. But distinguished participants, do we have any questions for our panellists? I have a question if there aren't going to be any. I'm interested in capacity building. So I think that we have, I mean, we've got a lot of expertise here on the panel, but I think it would be really great to hear from South Africa, Zimbabwe, your thoughts on how we build capacity, because we need to close these divides that we face, yes? So may I invite you, Mam, to respond? Thank you.

Thank you very much. I think it's important to build capacity, starting from investigation until at the point where you have judicial decisions. Recently, I think one of the issues that we experienced was where you find that if you put a particular matter and then artificial, you know, chat GPT or artificial intelligence platforms, then actually made wrong assumption of previous judgments. Now you've got to be able to train your judges to be able to utilize the tools effectively, because if you do not do training, they can be utilized wrongly and therefore produce wrong results. So it's that technical capacity, capacitation, we are doing that from our prosecutorial teams that we've been training with, partnering with Germany, for example, in terms of that work. We're doing training with Korea School, particularly, that is for judicial officers. both at lower courts and higher courts, but we are training particularly for judicial officers. And what we have now started to do is to move into the space. And one of the issues is to focus in artificial intelligence and the law, particularly getting speakers from academia to be able to deal with the ethics part of it as well, 'cause I think it's critical. And she spoke about the issue of culture. We are a diverse nation. with almost, we've got 11 languages, for example, official languages, but different cultural backgrounds. Now, if you utilize technology without taking that into cognizance, it's likely to give you wrong results that you don't anticipate and give you, and people actually can start hating technology instead of embracing it because it's taking away who they are as a people.

Humanity first, I'm hearing, okay, good, thank you, so.

Thank you. In my view, there's need for capacitation at different levels, starting with the individuals, the professionals themselves. Judges, prosecutors, investigators should be capacitated. They should be AI literate to start with. We're not saying they should be experts, but they should at least have an appreciation of how AI works, its limitations, its strength, because they'll be expected to make decisions on the basis or based on the information that has been generated or processed by AI. They should understand the limitations so that when they make decisions, they're making informed decisions. Secondly, they should also be capacitated in terms of understanding digital evidence, how it's, you know, collected, how it's preserved, you know, the rest of it. Because again, they'll be expected to make decisions based on digital evidence that probably they don't understand how it was collected and preserved. So it's very critical so that they understand the limitations and the bias that could be there. Thirdly, I think there should also be capacitation in terms of cybersecurity and protection, data protection and all the rest of it. And finally, there should also be capacitation, one on the individual perspective and also institutionally. there should be policies, you know, institutional policies and regulations just to ensure that there's a way, there are means and processes to evaluate the technical systems on an ongoing process. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you very much. I think that final point that you made there around what's really institution strengthening, you know, to ensure that legacy is built actually, because we can train, you know, a cohort of professionals, but if they move on, that knowledge is lost. And this is something that we definitely need to prioritise. I fully agree. I'm really pleased to hear from all of you on these topics, and I feel that you would like to intervene on this topic too.

I believe that there is one most important thing that I need the people to be aware of. It's good to equip the people with the right skill of AI tools and the technology itself, but we need people to be able to exercise judgment over the AI itself, how they can question the output. This is the skill that we need to focus on moving forward if we are deciding to enable They're just a system where the AI advanced towards.

I completely agree with you. Thank you for making that important point. Excellent. Now we are at our final moments because we have interpretation, so we need to conclude on time. But in 20 to 30 seconds, so shorter than I had indicated, Judge Yusuf, please.

Thank you. I'll just be concise and precise. My takeaways, key takeaways is just For AI, we should be cautious. We should be piloting at the first phases, deliberately analyzing and be more assistive than substitutive. There is no room that we should harness technology. It facilitates justice delivery. But striking a balance between this technology and having a human oversight is very important. If it is important in our daily lives, its paramount importance in the justice system in general and criminal justice in particular. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And Mr. Prash, please.

I'll be brief, too. I think retaining decision-making power for judges and prosecutors is crucial. maybe it's another question, but the issue might arise when you just have class action settlements or a huge number of cases. There, one might be surrendering one's decision-making power to an AI tool, or the temptation could be there, and that's why we have to be careful in that case. Thank you.

Fully agree with the volume of evidence and caseloads and so on. That's a real risk. Excellent. Thank you. Excellency, please.

Thank you very much. I think quick one from me would be when we look at the G20 South Africa Summit outcomes on artificial intelligence and together emphasized by the BRICS Summit this year in India, talks about the ability for us as ensure or the need for us to ensure that AI does not overtake humans and does not replace because we have a danger there if it runs ahead of us. and therefore we get left behind and leave society behind. So that is very important for justice system.

It is indeed. Thank you. Excellency.

Thank you. I have two points. The first one is to reiterate what has been mentioned earlier on, that AI should assist the judge and not be the judge. AI should assist the prosecutor and not be the prosecutor. Secondly, I liked what my colleague here said, that technology should not be the objective. So in other words, we should start by evaluating our manual systems in the first place and ensure that they are proper good systems and then use technology to ensure that they are efficient. I believe that a bad input produces a bad output. Technology cannot solve that problem. I thank you.

Excellent. Very beautifully articulated. Thank you so much. And Mr. Tassadira.

Just to quickly recap, I think AI can be the criminal justice best friend, but at the same time we have to embrace it after having taken into account the core principles of what makes a human being human. In other words, we need to ensure that there's proper capacity building, proper safeguards, proper security, and to ensure that human intervention comes at the right moment. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And finally, Dr. Evertseum.

I believe the most important thing or takeaway from today is the public interest and the outcome, then the technology. Then what is the best technology today, you can use it to scale it and have better justice.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate this final round of reflections that you have shared. I think this helps to crystallize what we have discussed here today, which is very much on this precipice of risk and opportunity. But In order for us to stop balancing on this precipice in a dangerous way, we need to do the hard work. And so we've also heard some very practical strategies for that hard work that is ahead of us all. And we do at UNODC think that international cooperation is at the heart of this. And so we look forward very much to collaborating with all of you on this challenge/opportunity going forward. Thank you very much to our distinguished speakers. Thank you.

Distinguished delegates, dear fellow speakers, the International Olympic Committee is grateful for the opportunity to address a priority of common concern, protecting sports for criminal threats and preserving its positive role in society. As the leader of the Olympic movement, we remain committed to contributing to global efforts to prevent and respond to these threats. We also recognize that this responsibility cannot be met by the sports movement alone. In 2017, we co-founded the International Partnership Against Corruption in Sport, or IPACS, together with UNODC and other partners. Its purpose was clear. Sports organizations, governments and international organizations must work together if sport is to be effectively protected from corruption. Last October, we hosted the International Forum for Sports Integrity. It brought together representatives of governments, international organizations, sports bodies and betting authorities. At that forum, we adopted the Universal Declaration on Sports Integrity. The declaration calls for enhanced cooperation between sports organizations and public authorities and encourages all stakeholders to make use of UNODC and IPAC's tools and programs. Today, under the leadership of President Kirsty Coventry, we are seeking to build on this work. direction for our organization. Within that process, the integrity of sport remains central, central to our support for athletes and central to our cooperation across the Olympic movement. As threats evolve, our cooperation must evolve as well. UNODC and Member States will remain essential partners as we continue our work to protect sport from crime with renewed determination. The challenges before us are significant. From the growing attract... Therefore, we welcome the attention that Member States have devoted to this issue. IPACS has been strengthened by the recent addition of new states. Drawing on the expertise of its members, IPAPs has also turned its attention to emerging criminal threats. Its newly published fact sheet on AI and corruption in sports provides practical guidance on an increasingly relevant subject. We also recognize the important progress made by member states in criminalizing the manipulation of sports competition. In parallel, national cooperation platforms are bringing together law enforcement, betting regulators and sports. These strengthen the ability of sports organizations to uphold integrity and to cooperate effectively with public authorities. UNODC support has been central to our work on safeguarding sport from corruption and other forms of economic crime. Our collaboration has also shown how sports can contribute to the prevention of youth violence and crime by helping young people develop life skills, resilience, and positive social connections. Through initiatives such as SCORE, Sport Against Crime, Outreach, Resilience, and Empowerment, and the Southeast Asia Sport and Youth Crime Prevention Initiative, The combined expertise of the IOC and UNODC has demonstrated how sport can engage underserved communities, strengthen protective factors for young people, and create pathways for sustained participation, social inclusion, and positive development. I would like to thank UNODC for its valuable support. And to conclude, we reaffirm our commitment to working with Member States, UNODC and all partners to protect youth and safeguard sport. Athletes remain at the centre of everything we do. Safeguarding sport means ensuring, to the fullest extent possible, that they can compete free from criminal interference. With the Dakar 2026 Youth Olympic Games approaching, this commitment remains as strong as ever. We are grateful for your continued partnership and support.