Chile

The Calle Segura program, launched in 2019, was an initiative to deploy over 2,000 cameras with advanced technology and AI across 1,000 critical points nationwide. Part of this included drones for televigilance, checkpoints to intercept escape routes for stolen vehicles, and improved interconnection between law-enforcement agencies and camera systems. The system connects various institutions—Carabineros, municipalities, highways, prosecutors—via a platform to share surveillance data and analytical outputs. The ‘Calle Segura’ programme also includes the implementation of a ‘comisaría virtual’ (virtual police station) to facilitate procedures that previously required in-person visits, thereby freeing Chilean national police to increase their presence on the streets. 

Prosecutors  

Evidence review and analysis 

The Chilean Attorney General’s Office uses an AI system called ‘FISCAL HEREDIA’, now used by more than 240 prosecutors nationwide. Using large volumes of data obtained from the databases of the Prosecutor’s Support System and the ‘SOSAFE’ citizen-security application (a community reporting platform), the tool employs two primary models: 

1. Mapping connections between individuals with criminal records, aiding in identifying suspects and understanding criminal networks.
2. Using natural language tools to process victim statements and police reports to detect patterns in criminal behaviour, assisting in linking related cases.

All results generated by FISCAL HEREDIA are subject to human oversight and validation by prosecutorial teams before integration into cases.

To develop the project, both the Prosecutor’s Support System and the SOSAFE citizen-security application made their databases available to researchers, while complying with privacy protection standards.

In pilot testing, the system was able to identify multiple suspects linked to a known individual, some of whom were still at large. The tool can work continuously, scanning hundreds of thousands of police reports. While it does not replace the work of legal experts, it offers a powerful analytic tool to enhance and accelerate their prosecutorial investigations.

The development and deployment of the FISCAL HEREDIA tool had multiple objectives:

1. Enhance prosecutorial intelligence. The system links incidents, such as thefts committed using vehicles with the same license plate or similar characteristics reported through the SOSAFE application to help identify ‘crime drives’, or patterns of repeated criminal activity,
2. Predictive burglary models. It produces Predictive home burglaries risk forecasts in different areas for better management of neighbourhood security, to enable a more effective preventative patrol.  
3. Improve alert management. It improves the organisation of alerts sent through the SOSAFE application and received by police and municipalities, providing a better prioritisation of urgent events requiring a quick response. 

Looking ahead, the Prosecutor’s Office plans to expand the tool’s capabilities by integrating additional datasets, such as prison records and inmate associations, to further enrich the social network model. They also aim to refine how crimes are weighed within the system (for instance, factoring in the severity of sentences) and to host the model on a central server or cloud platform so it can be used nationwide by regional prosecutors and police. Eventually, it is hoped that the technology will be adapted to support investigations into other serious crimes such as homicide, fraud, kidnapping, and drug trafficking.

Courts 

Case management 

As at August 2025, a pilot tool named ‘Justa’ is being tested by a team of judges, administrators, and technical advisors at the Juzgado de Letras y Garantía de Mulchén (Court of Letters and Guarantees of Mulchén), which handles criminal cases among others. It aims to speed up judicial workflows by assisting with internal tasks such as transcribing audio, drafting summaries, generating hearing minutes, and processing legal documents. This system is expanding to other courts, including a chamber of the Supreme Court. 

Other pilots include automated transcription and document analysis in local courts, such as Mulchén.

Legal research, analysis and drafting support 

Chile’s Supreme Court uses ‘Buscador de Jurisprudencia’ (Jurisprudence Search Tool), established by Auto Acordado No. 164-2024 (effective January 2025) and designed as a nationwide search engine for court ruling. The tool uses AI for semantic search anonymisation and relevance ranking, aiding judges and clerks in legal research.

TRAINING

Chile has begun incorporating training programs and awareness initiatives for justice-sector professionals on the use and risks of AI. The Academia Judicial de Chile (a public institution providing training to legal practitioners) has run ethics-focused sessions on AI and announced that it is developing guidance and training instruments to promote a ‘responsible, realistic’ use of AI in courts, with an emphasis on transparency, bias, and data protection. In 2022, the Attorney General’s Academy promoted and hosted AI-focused activities to familiarise prosecutors with new tools such as FISCAL HEREDIA. 

At the academic level, the Universidad de Chile launched a short course in 2025 titled ‘Inteligencia Artificial Aplicada a la Justicia’ (Artificial Intelligence Applied to Justice), open to practitioners and officials, covering applications of AI in legal processes.  

In August 2025, the Colegio de Abogados de Chile (Chilean Bar Association) convened a national seminar on ethics and AI, bringing together members of the judiciary and practising lawyers to debate risks, responsibilities, and ethical limits. 

Training on AI use  is also available in Chile through UNESCO-specific  programmes. 

Regulation

As at August 2025, there is no regulation governing the use of AI in criminal proceedings or in judicial proceedings more broadly. However, existing regulations—such as the criminal procedure code, data protection laws and constitutional principles—may be construed to regulate or limit the use of AI in criminal proceedings. And, a comprehensive AI draft bill (Boletín Nº 16.821-19) is being considered by the Chamber of Deputies. 

Guidelines for practitioners 

Judicial guidelines 

While there are no judicial guidelines specifically addressing the use of AI within the judiciary, judges are bound by constitutional principles of impartiality, independence, and reasoned decision-making. These imply caution in relying on automated tools.

There are also no specific guidelines for lawyers regarding the use of AI, as at August 2025.

Criminal procedure rules

Code of Criminal Procedure 

Pursuant to Article 297 of the Criminal Procedure Code, judges must evaluate all evidence—which would include outputs from forensic software, facial recognition systems, or predictive analytics tools—in accordance with principles of logic, maxims of experience, and scientifically well-founded knowledge. Courts are also required to explain the reasoning behind their assessment. This evidentiary rule functions as a natural safeguard against admitting or relying on opaque or insufficiently validated AI systems that cannot meet scientific rigor or transparency thresholds.

Data protection legislation 

General Data Protection Law (Law 21.719) 

Law No. 21.719 on the Protection of Personal Data (LPDP), which was approved by the Chilean Congress in December 2024 and will come into full effect in December 2026, establishes a legal framework for personal data protection. The LPDP creates a Personal Data Protection Agency to ensure compliance, expands data subject rights like data portability and erasure, and imposes new obligations on data controllers, aligning Chile's data privacy rules with international standards. The LPDP applies to data controllers (entities or individuals who determine the purposes and means of processing personal data) and data processors (entities or individuals who process data on behalf of a controller) at both private and public entities (including courts and prosecutorial bodies).While not specific to AI, the LPDP regulates the processing of personal data, which is highly relevant to AI systems used in the justice sector (e.g., risk assessment tools, predictive policing). Obligations around lawfulness, transparency, proportionality, and data subject rights apply equally to AI systems in the justice sector. These could, for example, restrict the deployment of AI tools that involve biometric or other sensitive data, or require procedural safeguards to ensure fair treatment of defendants. 

Human rights 

The use of AI in criminal proceedings must be consistent with procedural guarantees and fundamental rights included in the Chilean Constitution guarantees, including due process, equality before the law, and the right to a fair trial. Article 19 of the Constitution, which protects privacy, honour, and the inviolability of communications as well as the right to data protection, may, for example, operate as broad constitutional constraints on the use of AI where sensitive personal or biometric data are processed, or where automated outputs may affect due process and equality before the law.

Some additional international guidance is offered by regional and international instruments. Chile participates in Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (‘IACHR’) initiatives concerning digital rights and the use of technology in justice systems. The IACHR has emphasized that any AI use in judicial contexts must safeguard access to justice and non-discrimination. Chile has also endorsed the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2021), which, while non-binding, sets principles on transparency, accountability, and human rights protections that extend to justice-sector applications.

Outlook 

In 2021, Chile launched its first National Artificial Intelligence Policy (2021–2030) which outlines the country’s vision for AI development in relation to three areas: (i) enabling infrastructure, (ii) AI development and adoption, and (iii) ethics, regulation, and socioeconomic impacts. The policy establishes the foundation for responsible use of AI across both the public and private sectors, including those in the justice sector

In May 2024, Chile presented an updated National AI Policy and accompanying draft law following UNESCO’s Readiness Assessment Methodology. The updated policy acknowledges the need for AI regulation, including guidelines on the ethical use of AI systems in the public sector, standards for transparency, accountability and data protection as well as the reform of laws complementary to AI. The draft law (Boletín 16.821-19) proposes a regulatory approach that combines self-regulation with risk regulation, distinguishing AI systems into those presenting unacceptable risk, high risk, limited risk, and no- obvious risk. It mandates transparency, explainability, documentation, human oversight, and sanctions for non-compliance.

Cases

In a 2024 decision (Rol N° 18.566-2024), the Supreme Court held that Worldcoin - a digital ID platform co–founded by Open AI’s CEO Sam Altman - violated a minor’s constitutional rights to privacy and data-protection by scanning her iris without informed consent and ordered Worldcoin to delete her biometric data within 30 days. The Supreme Court highlighted that biometric data is highly sensitive, requiring special constitutional protection. The ruling leaves open important questions about how courts will handle biometric and AI-processed data in criminal proceedings.

In 2020, the Chilean Constitutional Court addressed the constitutionality of conducting criminal trials via videoconference under pandemic-era legislation. The petitioner challenged the law that allowed remote trials, arguing it violated his right to a fair trial, including the right to an effective defence. The complaint was ultimately rejected (Rol  N° 9054-2020) because the court did not reach the majority vote required to declare provisions of the law unconstitutional. Several justices, however, raised concerns about the use of digital and AI tools to replace judicial functions and the erosion of fair trial guarantees, highlighting that AI should ‘never’ replace judicial decision-making (‘the judge’s subjectivity’) and evidence assessment, especially in criminal cases.