Justice: Ministry data cannot be used to train AI

Data relating to the administration of justice remains segregated within the Ministry’s institutional tenant and is not used for training the models. The trial of Microsoft 365 Copilot is not accompanied by system instructions, standardised prompts or operational guidelines relevant to the formation of judicial decisions. Indeed, ‘the Government firmly believes that artificial intelligence, far from heralding the advent of an algorithmic judge, can make a significant contribution to the efficiency of the judicial system, as well as to other areas in which it is called upon to operate’.

The Ministry of Justice has issued a written response to the parliamentary question tabled by Enrico Costa, leader of the Forza Italia group in the Chamber of Deputies. Mr Costa asked, amongst other things, what system instructions, prompt templates or operational guidelines – whether standardised or recommended – are currently made available to magistrates in the context of the ministerial trial of Microsoft 365 Copilot with judicial documents, who defined their content and according to what criteria they were validated.

The Ministry emphasises, first and foremost, the principle that the judicial function, like any other assessment entrusted to a judge, cannot be either transferred or delegated to a technological tool. From this perspective, and within a regulatory framework at both European and national levels, with the CSM’s guidelines approved just last year serving as the cornerstone, the experimental applications relating to the use of Microsoft’s artificial intelligence system concern only, as the response assures, activities unrelated to to the decision-making and the formation of the judge’s opinion.

The parliamentary question, in accordance with due process, also asked what safeguards ensure that the defence is aware of the judge’s use of AI and, should it be used to analyse case files, can verify the commands entered, the instructions and the results generated , in order to prevent a pre-decision phase being conducted without cross-examination. However, the reply points out that ‘it must be reiterated that the Ministry does not, nor could it, exercise any form of control over the process of reaching a judicial decision or over the methods by which each judge conducts their preparatory work, in-depth analysis, research and deliberation prior to the decision’.

As far as digital sovereignty – a point which was also recently highlighted in an open letter signed by over 50 senior judicial officials (including the National Anti-Mafia Prosecutor Giovanni Melillo) – the Ministry has set out in writing the absolute unavailability of data outside the digital archive in Via Arenula and, in any case, the current ban on the use of such data for training artificial intelligence models.