Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Artificial Intelligence in Forensic Investigations. Doctrinal Gaps, Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law Cover

Artificial Intelligence in Forensic Investigations. Doctrinal Gaps, Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law

Open Access
|Nov 2025

References

  1. Abdulai, A.G., Sackeyfio, N. (2022). Introduction: The uncertainties of Ghana’s 2020 elections. African Affairs, 121(484), e25–e53.
  2. Artificial Intelligence Act (UE), (2024). Dispozițiile privind sistemele „high-risk”.
  3. Barocas, S., Selbst, A.D. (2016). Big Data’s Disparate Impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671–732.
  4. Buolamwini, J., Gebru, T. (2018). Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 1–15.
  5. Carta Drepturilor Fundamentale a Uniunii Europene, art. 7–8.
  6. CEDO, Big Brother Watch and Others v. United Kingdom, hotărârea din 25 mai 2021.
  7. CEDO, Gillan and Quinton v. United Kingdom, hotărârea din 12 ianuarie 2010.
  8. CEDO, Khan v. United Kingdom, hotărârea din 12 mai 2000.
  9. CEDO, S. and Marper v. United Kingdom, hotărârea din 4 decembrie 2008.
  10. Cary Coglianese, D., Lehr, D. (2017). Regulating by Robot: Administrative Decision Making in the Machine-Learning Era. Georgetown Law Journal, 105, 1147–1223.
  11. Convenția Europeană a Drepturilor Omului, art. 8.
  12. European Data Protection Board (EDPB) (2021). Guidelines 05/2021 on the Interplay between the Application of Article 3 and the Provisions on International Transfers as per Chapter V of the GDPR, adoptate la 18 noiembrie 2021.
  13. Ferguson, A.G. (2017). The Rise of Big Data Policing: Surveillance, Race, and the Future of Law Enforcement. NYU Press.
  14. G.F. Lendvai, G., Gosztonyi, G. (2025). Algorithmic Bias as a Core Legal Dilemma in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Conceptual Basis and the Current State of Regulation. Laws, 14(3), 1–20.
  15. Hildebrandt, M. (2015). Smart Technologies and the End(s) of Law. Edward Elgar.
  16. Hildebrandt, M. (2016). Law as Computation in the Era of Artificial Legal Intelligence: Speaking Law to the Power of Statistics. University of Toronto Law Journal, 68(1), 12–34.
  17. Judicial Approaches to Acknowledged and Unacknowledged AI-Generated Evidence (2025). Artificial Intelligence Trends Report, eDiscovery Today, 27 mai 2025.
  18. Joshua A. Kroll, J.A., Huey, J., Barocas, S., Felten, E.W., Reidenberg, J.R., Robinson, D.G., Yu, H. (2017). Accountable Algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165(3), 633–705.
  19. UNESCO & International Association of Prosecutors (2025). Guidelines for Prosecutors on Digital Evidence. Paris.
  20. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Floridi, L. (2017). Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76–99.
  21. Wang, X. (2024). Algorithmic Discrimination: Examining Its Types and Regulatory Responses. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7, 1–12.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jles-2025-0019 | Journal eISSN: 2457-9017 | Journal ISSN: 2392-7054
Language: English
Page range: 164 - 175
Submitted on: Oct 1, 2025
Accepted on: Nov 1, 2025
Published on: Nov 3, 2025
Published by: Vasile Goldis Western University of Arad
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2025 Anca Florina Moroșteș, published by Vasile Goldis Western University of Arad
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.