# Recital (59)

Given their role and responsibility, actions by law enforcement authorities involving certain uses of AI systems are 
characterised by a significant degree of power imbalance and may lead to surveillance, arrest or deprivation of 
a natural person’s liberty as well as other adverse impacts on fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter. In 
particular, if the AI system is not trained with high-quality data, does not meet adequate requirements in terms of its 
performance, its accuracy or robustness, or is not properly designed and tested before being put on the market or 
otherwise put into service, it may single out people in a discriminatory or otherwise incorrect or unjust manner. 
Furthermore, the exercise of important procedural fundamental rights, such as the right to an effective remedy and 
to a fair trial as well as the right of defence and the presumption of innocence, could be hampered, in particular, 
where such AI systems are not sufficiently transparent, explainable and documented. It is therefore appropriate to 
classify as high-risk, insofar as their use is permitted under relevant Union and national law, a number of AI systems 
intended to be used in the law enforcement context where accuracy, reliability and transparency is particularly 
important to avoid adverse impacts, retain public trust and ensure accountability and effective redress. In view of the 
nature of the activities and the risks relating thereto, those high-risk AI systems should include in particular AI 
systems intended to be used by or on behalf of law enforcement authorities or by Union institutions, bodies, offices, 
or agencies in support of law enforcement authorities for assessing the risk of a natural person to become a victim of 
criminal offences, as polygraphs and similar tools, for the evaluation of the reliability of evidence in in the course of 
investigation or prosecution of criminal offences, and, insofar as not prohibited under this Regulation, for assessing 
the risk of a natural person offending or reoffending not solely on the basis of the profiling of natural persons or the 
assessment of personality traits and characteristics or the past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups, for 
profiling in the course of detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences. AI systems specifically 
intended to be used for administrative proceedings by tax and customs authorities as well as by financial intelligence 
units carrying out administrative tasks analysing information pursuant to Union anti-money laundering law should 
not be classified as high-risk AI systems used by law enforcement authorities for the purpose of prevention, 
detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. The use of AI tools by law enforcement and other 
relevant authorities should not become a factor of inequality, or exclusion. The impact of the use of AI tools on the 
defence rights of suspects should not be ignored, in particular the difficulty in obtaining meaningful information on 
the functioning of those systems and the resulting difficulty in challenging their results in court, in particular by 
natural persons under investigation.

---
Source: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, consolidated text of 27 July 2026 (Official Journal of the EU). This page is AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the Official Journal.
Canonical: https://euaiactlaw.com/recital/59