From the Public Safety edition of October 26, 2026
Chile’s Supreme Court approves its first institutional AI policy: only authorized uses, mandatory human review, and no AI deciding cases or weighing evidence
Corte Suprema de Chile (Poder Judicial de Chile) · Courts / judicial use of AI · Chile
- Publisher
- La Tercera
- Original publication
- La Tercera, Oct. 26, 2026
- Source retrieved
- 2026-10-27
- Event date
- 2026-10-23
What happened
La Tercera reports that the full Chilean Supreme Court, closing its annual reflection sessions on Friday (Oct. 23), approved the judiciary’s first institutional AI policy, drafted by its Studies Directorate and Justice Jean Pierre Matus; the text is to be published in the coming days. According to sources who have seen it, the policy moves from individual use to institutional use: in judicial work and court systems only AI uses authorized by the Electronic Processing Commission (Comisión de Tramitación Electrónica) will be allowed, each authorization specifying purpose, data and conditions. Entering draft rulings or personal data into unauthorized AI tools will be prohibited. AI may never decide a case, replace the weighing of evidence or write the reasoning of rulings; every authorized use requires human review. The policy adds a risk-grading table, a catalogue of authorized systems and uses, and an AI Committee with a Supreme Court justice and staff association representatives. A companion La Tercera article the same day quotes Court President Gloria Ana Chevesich saying the instrument has 13 guiding principles, including human oversight, explainability, traceability and judicial independence.
Why it matters
A national court system replacing individual judge-by-judge AI use with an approved-use catalogue, a risk table and a standing committee, a governance model U.S. state court administrators are also weighing.
Evidence and measured results
Opened the La Tercera article and read it in full; cross-checked against La Tercera’s companion article quoting the Court President’s Monday briefing.
Limitations and uncertainty
The policy text was not yet published when retrieved; details come from press reporting based on court sources and the President’s briefing. No data on current AI use or error rates. Chilean civil-law context limits direct transfer to U.S. courts.
Put this evidence to work
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation, grounded in this source. Enriched 2026-10-27; this does not change the original publication date. Each role follows the same checklist so takeaways compare across sources.
Sales
Role takeaway
- Customer problem
- Court leaders need to replace ad hoc AI use by judges and staff with an auditable list of approved uses, without stalling useful work.
- Stakeholders
- Chief justice and court administrators
- Court IT and electronic filing teams
- Judges’ and staff associations
- Data protection officers
- Discovery questions
- Which AI tools do judges and clerks use today, including personal accounts?
- Who would approve a new AI use, and on what criteria?
- How would draft rulings be kept out of unapproved tools?
- Value hypothesis
- A use-by-use approval process could cut the risk of errors like AI-drafted rulings while letting low-risk uses proceed.
- Potential engagement
- AI use inventory and risk-tier mapping for one court system, producing a draft approved-use catalogue.
- Unsupported claims
- That the policy improves efficiency
- That the final text matches press reports
- Any measured reduction in AI errors
Pre-sales engineering
Role takeaway
- Fit
- Comparable to U.S. state judiciaries drafting AI policies after AI-drafted orders drew appellate criticism.
- Architecture and integration
- Approved-use catalogue sits above case-management and drafting tools; enforcement needs data-loss controls between court systems and external AI.
- Prerequisites
- Published policy text
- Inventory of AI tools in use
- Data classification for court records
- Constraints
- Policy text unpublished when retrieved
- Chilean civil-law system
- No measured outcomes
- Security
- Block personal data and draft rulings from reaching unapproved AI services; log approved uses.
- Proof of value
- Proposed: test whether data-loss controls stop draft ruling text reaching an unapproved AI service
- Proposed: audit a sample of chambers for unlisted AI use
Delivery
Role takeaway
- Work
- Set up the authorization process, risk table, catalogue and committee; train judges and staff.
- Dependencies
- Final policy text
- Electronic Processing Commission capacity
- Staff association participation
- Ownership
- Court electronic processing commission with the AI Committee
- Skills and adoption
- Judges and clerks trained on prohibited uses and the approval route for new uses.
- Governance checkpoints
- Policy publication
- First catalogue approval
- Periodic committee review
- Acceptance criteria
- Proposed: all production AI uses listed with approval records
- Proposed: approval decisions within a set time
- Risks
- Workarounds with personal tools
- Slow approvals
- Divergence between press account and final text
Implementation considerations
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation across the operating dimensions a public-sector buyer must settle before this evidence becomes a design. Each note answers the question under its heading for this specific source.
Architecture and integration
What must connect, and where does the AI sit in the workflow?
Implies an inventory of authorized AI systems and a gate between court case-management systems and any AI tool; unauthorized external tools may not receive draft rulings or personal data.
Governance
Who approves, reviews and stays accountable for outcomes?
Use-by-use authorization by a commission, a risk-grading table, a catalogue of approved uses and an AI Committee, plus a channel for staff to propose new pilots; complements the judicial ethics code and an August circular.
Security and privacy
What data, permissions and controls need testing?
Explicit ban on entering non-public information (draft rulings, personal data) into unauthorized AI tools.
Accessibility and workforce
Who is affected, and what skills or accommodations follow?
Judges and staff lose discretion to use personal AI accounts for court work; the policy routes new ideas through a proposal channel rather than individual experimentation.
Procurement
What should contracts, pricing and exit terms secure?
Approval turns on the specific use rather than on whether a licence or account exists, so vendors would need each use authorized, not just a contract.
Operating model
Which teams own the service once it runs?
Moves AI from individual judges’ discretion to an institutional model administered by the Electronic Processing Commission and an AI Committee.
Publication history
- 2026-10-26Public Safety · Issue 487 resources
Stable resource ID: chile-supreme-court-approves-institutional-ai-policy-authorized-uses-human-review-20261026