![\"\"](\"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/L21-Banner-INGLES-1024x190.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nJustice that always arrives too late<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nLatin American constitutions recognize rights and procedural guarantees. The problem arises when it comes to making them effective. Overloaded caseloads, labyrinthine procedures, incomprehensible legal language, shortages of public defenders, travel costs, and courts concentrated in major cities are all part of everyday life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Technology will not resolve these structural shortcomings, but it can mitigate some of their consequences. Argentina has Prometea, a tool that automates repetitive tasks, while Colombia has experimented with PretorIA to process information related to tutela<\/em> actions, a constitutional mechanism for protecting fundamental rights. These are early steps that offer a glimpse of the direction the region could take.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe real contribution lies not in having a machine do things faster, but in freeing up time for judges and public defenders to focus on matters that require human deliberation. That is the limit: artificial intelligence should bring justice closer, never make it less humane.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mexico and its two transformations<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nMexico could become a fascinating testing ground. The new composition of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has placed access to justice for Indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples at the center of the debate. Under the presidency of Hugo Aguilar Ortiz, the Court has promoted a multicultural vision that recognizes that law does not originate solely in the state’s codes and courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As recently as January, the Community Research System was introduced, recognizing Indigenous and Afro-Mexican knowledge as valid legal knowledge. Mechanisms were also created to incorporate the rules and rulings of community authorities into the Semanario Judicial de la Federaci\u00f3n<\/em>, the federal judiciary’s official collection of judicial decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\nFor decades, the relationship between the state and Indigenous peoples was a monologue: the state recognized\u2014or denied\u2014rights while community-based legal systems remained outside the official framework. That is beginning to change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the same time, federal courts have developed criteria governing the use of artificial intelligence, accepting it as an auxiliary tool subject to requirements of transparency, data protection, explainability, and human oversight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are two paths that are still advancing separately: digital justice and intercultural justice. Their true potential will emerge when they converge and technology becomes a bridge between legal systems that have coexisted for centuries without meaningfully engaging with one another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Publishing is not the same as making information accessible<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAlso in 2026, the Court signed a collaboration agreement with Wikimedia M\u00e9xico to disseminate its legal and historical collections through Wikipedia. The initiative highlights something fundamental: publishing information does not necessarily make it accessible. Combining open repositories with artificial intelligence could break this pattern by providing tools capable of summarizing, translating, and contextualizing information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
People should not need to know the number of a judicial precedent or which body issued a ruling. They should be able to ask, in everyday language, what rights their community has when faced with a public works project that was never subject to consultation, and find relevant court decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Democratizing justice also means democratizing the knowledge produced by the courts. Knowledge locked away in cryptic language and difficult-to-navigate databases is, in practice, inaccessible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A translator between citizens and the state<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nConsider an Indigenous woman living in a remote community who needs to report violence, claim a pension, or resolve a land dispute. She may not know which institution to approach, may not be fluent in Spanish, or may be unfamiliar with terms such as \u201cterritorial jurisdiction,\u201d \u201cprecautionary measure,\u201d or amparo<\/em>, a legal remedy for protecting constitutional rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\nHer problem begins before she reaches the courthouse: when she decides to seek help but does not know whom to turn to, how to present her case, or which language to use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A public artificial intelligence system could serve as the first point of contact. Through voice interaction on a phone or at a community access point, it could listen to her concerns in her own language, explain her rights, identify the appropriate institution, and guide her through the necessary steps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It would not be a \u201crobot judge.\u201d It would be a translator between citizens and a state that too often speaks an incomprehensible language. AI could facilitate translation, explain rulings without legal jargon, and search for relevant precedents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the justice system must also learn to listen<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nIntercultural engagement must work both ways. It is not enough for a machine to translate the state’s legal language for Indigenous peoples. If Mexico incorporates community-based rules, rulings, and knowledge into its repositories, artificial intelligence could also help judges and public defenders identify relevant Indigenous legal systems, community precedents, and traditional approaches to resolving disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This requires safeguards. Indigenous knowledge must not be used without authorization, and communities must participate in decisions about what information is incorporated and for what purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
AI should not serve only to help Indigenous peoples understand the justice system; it can also help the justice system learn to understand Indigenous peoples. That is the leap from inclusion to a truly pluralistic system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Algorithms can discriminate, too<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nIt would be na\u00efve to assume that every use of AI automatically represents democratic progress. Algorithms learn from societies shaped by historical inequalities. If their data contain biases, the technology can reproduce and even amplify them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
AI should therefore assist judges, but never replace their responsibility. It can classify case files, find case law, translate documents, and identify delays. Judging, by contrast, must remain a human act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From digital justice to social justice<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThere is a paradox: those who stand to benefit most from these tools are also those who face the greatest obstacles to accessing them. There is little point in developing a sophisticated legal assistant if it works only with high-speed internet and the latest smartphones. Digital transformation requires rural connectivity, public access points, and systems capable of operating with limited connections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We can use AI to help courts work faster. Or we can aim higher: ensuring that people who have never been able to reach a courthouse can finally do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That an Indigenous woman can learn about her rights in her own language. That a farmer can find out where to file a claim without traveling for hours. That someone without financial resources can understand a court ruling. That a public defender can find the precedents they need. That a judge can understand the legal system of the community whose rights they are responsible for protecting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We do not need artificial judges. We need artificial intelligence that breaks down economic, linguistic, geographic, and cultural barriers. If we succeed, its greatest contribution will not be technological, but democratic. Faster justice matters. More efficient justice matters, too. But the real revolution will be ensuring that justice finally reaches those who have always been furthest from it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Artificial intelligence can reduce the economic and linguistic barriers that hinder access to justice, provided that it complements human efforts and respects cultural diversity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":385,"featured_media":59940,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"episode_type":"","audio_file":"","podmotor_file_id":"","podmotor_episode_id":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"","filesize_raw":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","itunes_episode_number":"","itunes_title":"","itunes_season_number":"","itunes_episode_type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17077],"tags":[15635],"gps":[],"class_list":["post-59972","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-inteligencia-artificial-en","tag-debates"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59972","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/385"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59972"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59972\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":59974,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59972\/revisions\/59974"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/59940"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59972"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59972"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59972"},{"taxonomy":"gps","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gps?post=59972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
The real contribution lies not in having a machine do things faster, but in freeing up time for judges and public defenders to focus on matters that require human deliberation. That is the limit: artificial intelligence should bring justice closer, never make it less humane.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mexico and its two transformations<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nMexico could become a fascinating testing ground. The new composition of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has placed access to justice for Indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples at the center of the debate. Under the presidency of Hugo Aguilar Ortiz, the Court has promoted a multicultural vision that recognizes that law does not originate solely in the state’s codes and courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As recently as January, the Community Research System was introduced, recognizing Indigenous and Afro-Mexican knowledge as valid legal knowledge. Mechanisms were also created to incorporate the rules and rulings of community authorities into the Semanario Judicial de la Federaci\u00f3n<\/em>, the federal judiciary’s official collection of judicial decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\nFor decades, the relationship between the state and Indigenous peoples was a monologue: the state recognized\u2014or denied\u2014rights while community-based legal systems remained outside the official framework. That is beginning to change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the same time, federal courts have developed criteria governing the use of artificial intelligence, accepting it as an auxiliary tool subject to requirements of transparency, data protection, explainability, and human oversight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are two paths that are still advancing separately: digital justice and intercultural justice. Their true potential will emerge when they converge and technology becomes a bridge between legal systems that have coexisted for centuries without meaningfully engaging with one another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Publishing is not the same as making information accessible<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAlso in 2026, the Court signed a collaboration agreement with Wikimedia M\u00e9xico to disseminate its legal and historical collections through Wikipedia. The initiative highlights something fundamental: publishing information does not necessarily make it accessible. Combining open repositories with artificial intelligence could break this pattern by providing tools capable of summarizing, translating, and contextualizing information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
People should not need to know the number of a judicial precedent or which body issued a ruling. They should be able to ask, in everyday language, what rights their community has when faced with a public works project that was never subject to consultation, and find relevant court decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Democratizing justice also means democratizing the knowledge produced by the courts. Knowledge locked away in cryptic language and difficult-to-navigate databases is, in practice, inaccessible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A translator between citizens and the state<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nConsider an Indigenous woman living in a remote community who needs to report violence, claim a pension, or resolve a land dispute. She may not know which institution to approach, may not be fluent in Spanish, or may be unfamiliar with terms such as \u201cterritorial jurisdiction,\u201d \u201cprecautionary measure,\u201d or amparo<\/em>, a legal remedy for protecting constitutional rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\nHer problem begins before she reaches the courthouse: when she decides to seek help but does not know whom to turn to, how to present her case, or which language to use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A public artificial intelligence system could serve as the first point of contact. Through voice interaction on a phone or at a community access point, it could listen to her concerns in her own language, explain her rights, identify the appropriate institution, and guide her through the necessary steps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It would not be a \u201crobot judge.\u201d It would be a translator between citizens and a state that too often speaks an incomprehensible language. AI could facilitate translation, explain rulings without legal jargon, and search for relevant precedents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the justice system must also learn to listen<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nIntercultural engagement must work both ways. It is not enough for a machine to translate the state’s legal language for Indigenous peoples. If Mexico incorporates community-based rules, rulings, and knowledge into its repositories, artificial intelligence could also help judges and public defenders identify relevant Indigenous legal systems, community precedents, and traditional approaches to resolving disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This requires safeguards. Indigenous knowledge must not be used without authorization, and communities must participate in decisions about what information is incorporated and for what purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
AI should not serve only to help Indigenous peoples understand the justice system; it can also help the justice system learn to understand Indigenous peoples. That is the leap from inclusion to a truly pluralistic system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Algorithms can discriminate, too<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nIt would be na\u00efve to assume that every use of AI automatically represents democratic progress. Algorithms learn from societies shaped by historical inequalities. If their data contain biases, the technology can reproduce and even amplify them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
AI should therefore assist judges, but never replace their responsibility. It can classify case files, find case law, translate documents, and identify delays. Judging, by contrast, must remain a human act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From digital justice to social justice<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThere is a paradox: those who stand to benefit most from these tools are also those who face the greatest obstacles to accessing them. There is little point in developing a sophisticated legal assistant if it works only with high-speed internet and the latest smartphones. Digital transformation requires rural connectivity, public access points, and systems capable of operating with limited connections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We can use AI to help courts work faster. Or we can aim higher: ensuring that people who have never been able to reach a courthouse can finally do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That an Indigenous woman can learn about her rights in her own language. That a farmer can find out where to file a claim without traveling for hours. That someone without financial resources can understand a court ruling. That a public defender can find the precedents they need. That a judge can understand the legal system of the community whose rights they are responsible for protecting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We do not need artificial judges. We need artificial intelligence that breaks down economic, linguistic, geographic, and cultural barriers. If we succeed, its greatest contribution will not be technological, but democratic. Faster justice matters. More efficient justice matters, too. But the real revolution will be ensuring that justice finally reaches those who have always been furthest from it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Artificial intelligence can reduce the economic and linguistic barriers that hinder access to justice, provided that it complements human efforts and respects cultural diversity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":385,"featured_media":59940,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"episode_type":"","audio_file":"","podmotor_file_id":"","podmotor_episode_id":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"","filesize_raw":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","itunes_episode_number":"","itunes_title":"","itunes_season_number":"","itunes_episode_type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17077],"tags":[15635],"gps":[],"class_list":["post-59972","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-inteligencia-artificial-en","tag-debates"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59972","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/385"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59972"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59972\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":59974,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59972\/revisions\/59974"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/59940"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59972"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59972"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59972"},{"taxonomy":"gps","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gps?post=59972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For decades, the relationship between the state and Indigenous peoples was a monologue: the state recognized\u2014or denied\u2014rights while community-based legal systems remained outside the official framework. That is beginning to change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the same time, federal courts have developed criteria governing the use of artificial intelligence, accepting it as an auxiliary tool subject to requirements of transparency, data protection, explainability, and human oversight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are two paths that are still advancing separately: digital justice and intercultural justice. Their true potential will emerge when they converge and technology becomes a bridge between legal systems that have coexisted for centuries without meaningfully engaging with one another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Publishing is not the same as making information accessible<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAlso in 2026, the Court signed a collaboration agreement with Wikimedia M\u00e9xico to disseminate its legal and historical collections through Wikipedia. The initiative highlights something fundamental: publishing information does not necessarily make it accessible. Combining open repositories with artificial intelligence could break this pattern by providing tools capable of summarizing, translating, and contextualizing information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
People should not need to know the number of a judicial precedent or which body issued a ruling. They should be able to ask, in everyday language, what rights their community has when faced with a public works project that was never subject to consultation, and find relevant court decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Democratizing justice also means democratizing the knowledge produced by the courts. Knowledge locked away in cryptic language and difficult-to-navigate databases is, in practice, inaccessible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A translator between citizens and the state<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nConsider an Indigenous woman living in a remote community who needs to report violence, claim a pension, or resolve a land dispute. She may not know which institution to approach, may not be fluent in Spanish, or may be unfamiliar with terms such as \u201cterritorial jurisdiction,\u201d \u201cprecautionary measure,\u201d or amparo<\/em>, a legal remedy for protecting constitutional rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\nHer problem begins before she reaches the courthouse: when she decides to seek help but does not know whom to turn to, how to present her case, or which language to use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A public artificial intelligence system could serve as the first point of contact. Through voice interaction on a phone or at a community access point, it could listen to her concerns in her own language, explain her rights, identify the appropriate institution, and guide her through the necessary steps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It would not be a \u201crobot judge.\u201d It would be a translator between citizens and a state that too often speaks an incomprehensible language. AI could facilitate translation, explain rulings without legal jargon, and search for relevant precedents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the justice system must also learn to listen<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nIntercultural engagement must work both ways. It is not enough for a machine to translate the state’s legal language for Indigenous peoples. If Mexico incorporates community-based rules, rulings, and knowledge into its repositories, artificial intelligence could also help judges and public defenders identify relevant Indigenous legal systems, community precedents, and traditional approaches to resolving disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This requires safeguards. Indigenous knowledge must not be used without authorization, and communities must participate in decisions about what information is incorporated and for what purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
AI should not serve only to help Indigenous peoples understand the justice system; it can also help the justice system learn to understand Indigenous peoples. That is the leap from inclusion to a truly pluralistic system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Algorithms can discriminate, too<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nIt would be na\u00efve to assume that every use of AI automatically represents democratic progress. Algorithms learn from societies shaped by historical inequalities. If their data contain biases, the technology can reproduce and even amplify them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
AI should therefore assist judges, but never replace their responsibility. It can classify case files, find case law, translate documents, and identify delays. Judging, by contrast, must remain a human act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From digital justice to social justice<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThere is a paradox: those who stand to benefit most from these tools are also those who face the greatest obstacles to accessing them. There is little point in developing a sophisticated legal assistant if it works only with high-speed internet and the latest smartphones. Digital transformation requires rural connectivity, public access points, and systems capable of operating with limited connections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We can use AI to help courts work faster. Or we can aim higher: ensuring that people who have never been able to reach a courthouse can finally do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That an Indigenous woman can learn about her rights in her own language. That a farmer can find out where to file a claim without traveling for hours. That someone without financial resources can understand a court ruling. That a public defender can find the precedents they need. That a judge can understand the legal system of the community whose rights they are responsible for protecting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We do not need artificial judges. We need artificial intelligence that breaks down economic, linguistic, geographic, and cultural barriers. If we succeed, its greatest contribution will not be technological, but democratic. Faster justice matters. More efficient justice matters, too. But the real revolution will be ensuring that justice finally reaches those who have always been furthest from it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Artificial intelligence can reduce the economic and linguistic barriers that hinder access to justice, provided that it complements human efforts and respects cultural diversity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":385,"featured_media":59940,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"episode_type":"","audio_file":"","podmotor_file_id":"","podmotor_episode_id":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"","filesize_raw":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","itunes_episode_number":"","itunes_title":"","itunes_season_number":"","itunes_episode_type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17077],"tags":[15635],"gps":[],"class_list":["post-59972","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-inteligencia-artificial-en","tag-debates"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59972","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/385"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59972"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59972\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":59974,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59972\/revisions\/59974"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/59940"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59972"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59972"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59972"},{"taxonomy":"gps","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gps?post=59972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Consider an Indigenous woman living in a remote community who needs to report violence, claim a pension, or resolve a land dispute. She may not know which institution to approach, may not be fluent in Spanish, or may be unfamiliar with terms such as \u201cterritorial jurisdiction,\u201d \u201cprecautionary measure,\u201d or amparo<\/em>, a legal remedy for protecting constitutional rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Her problem begins before she reaches the courthouse: when she decides to seek help but does not know whom to turn to, how to present her case, or which language to use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A public artificial intelligence system could serve as the first point of contact. Through voice interaction on a phone or at a community access point, it could listen to her concerns in her own language, explain her rights, identify the appropriate institution, and guide her through the necessary steps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It would not be a \u201crobot judge.\u201d It would be a translator between citizens and a state that too often speaks an incomprehensible language. AI could facilitate translation, explain rulings without legal jargon, and search for relevant precedents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Intercultural engagement must work both ways. It is not enough for a machine to translate the state’s legal language for Indigenous peoples. If Mexico incorporates community-based rules, rulings, and knowledge into its repositories, artificial intelligence could also help judges and public defenders identify relevant Indigenous legal systems, community precedents, and traditional approaches to resolving disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This requires safeguards. Indigenous knowledge must not be used without authorization, and communities must participate in decisions about what information is incorporated and for what purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n AI should not serve only to help Indigenous peoples understand the justice system; it can also help the justice system learn to understand Indigenous peoples. That is the leap from inclusion to a truly pluralistic system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It would be na\u00efve to assume that every use of AI automatically represents democratic progress. Algorithms learn from societies shaped by historical inequalities. If their data contain biases, the technology can reproduce and even amplify them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n AI should therefore assist judges, but never replace their responsibility. It can classify case files, find case law, translate documents, and identify delays. Judging, by contrast, must remain a human act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a paradox: those who stand to benefit most from these tools are also those who face the greatest obstacles to accessing them. There is little point in developing a sophisticated legal assistant if it works only with high-speed internet and the latest smartphones. Digital transformation requires rural connectivity, public access points, and systems capable of operating with limited connections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We can use AI to help courts work faster. Or we can aim higher: ensuring that people who have never been able to reach a courthouse can finally do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That an Indigenous woman can learn about her rights in her own language. That a farmer can find out where to file a claim without traveling for hours. That someone without financial resources can understand a court ruling. That a public defender can find the precedents they need. That a judge can understand the legal system of the community whose rights they are responsible for protecting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We do not need artificial judges. We need artificial intelligence that breaks down economic, linguistic, geographic, and cultural barriers. If we succeed, its greatest contribution will not be technological, but democratic. Faster justice matters. More efficient justice matters, too. But the real revolution will be ensuring that justice finally reaches those who have always been furthest from it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Artificial intelligence can reduce the economic and linguistic barriers that hinder access to justice, provided that it complements human efforts and respects cultural diversity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":385,"featured_media":59940,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"episode_type":"","audio_file":"","podmotor_file_id":"","podmotor_episode_id":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"","filesize_raw":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","itunes_episode_number":"","itunes_title":"","itunes_season_number":"","itunes_episode_type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17077],"tags":[15635],"gps":[],"class_list":["post-59972","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-inteligencia-artificial-en","tag-debates"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59972","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/385"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59972"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59972\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":59974,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59972\/revisions\/59974"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/59940"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59972"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59972"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59972"},{"taxonomy":"gps","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/latinoamerica21.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gps?post=59972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}But the justice system must also learn to listen<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Algorithms can discriminate, too<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
From digital justice to social justice<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n