LexLint.ioBeta

Know the law your code answers to.

Law / Belize

Practice Direction No. 18 of 2025, ethical use of generative AI in court proceedings

Practice Direction No. 18 of 2025, Belize Senior Courts (issued under Senior Courts Act, Act No. 27 of 2022, s. 101)

In force since .

An AI transparency rule binding public and private bodies.

How the hook was established
express
What makes it apply
Place of effect
Obligation class
Disclosure, Prohibition
Audit expectation
none

What it requires

  • Do not use generative AI to produce the content of an affidavit, witness statement, or other material intended to reflect a deponent's or witness's own evidence submitted in a Belizean court.NIST AI RMFMAP 3.3
  • Disclose when AI-generated content is used in a court submission, and independently verify any AI-generated legal research before relying on it.NIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.8NIST AI RMFMAP 3.5

These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.

In the frameworks

NIST AI RMF
  • MAP 3.3Targeted application scope is specified and documented based on the system’s capability, established context, and AI system categorization.
  • MAP 3.5Processes for human oversight are defined, assessed, and documented in accordance with organizational policies from the GOVERN function.
  • MEASURE 2.8Risks associated with transparency and accountability – as identified in the MAP function – are examined and documented.
NIST AI 600-1
MIT mitigations Draft
  • 1.5Safety Decision Frameworks
  • 3.3Access Management
  • 4.1System Documentation
  • 4.2Risk Disclosure
  • 4.6User Rights & Recourse
FINOS AIGF
ETSI EN 304 223
  • 5.1.2-1Business need and security risks written down and assessed before deciding to build an AI system.
  • 5.1.3-2Threats developers cannot resolve are passed to operators and on to end-users.
  • 5.1.4-5End-users told which uses of the system are prohibited.
  • 5.3.1-1Users told where and how their data is used, accessed and stored, with developers informing operators.
  • 5.3.1-2.1That guidance covers proper use, limits and likely failure modes.

Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST AI RMF, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law

Identifiers refer to ETSI EN 304 223 V2.1.1 (2025-12), © ETSI 2025, all rights reserved. ETSI owns the standard; no ETSI text (titles or sentences) is reproduced here. The standard is free to download from ETSI.

What it makes you log

Who may demand the log

Court

What the log must hold

System identity, Output reference, Disclosure shown

Logging duty

Neither section uses the words log, record, or audit trail, but section 3(3) conditions any permitted use of AI in an annexure or exhibit on a written application to the Court specifying the AI programme or system and its version, and section 3(5) requires disclosing when AI-generated content is used in a court submission, so a court user cannot show compliance without a record the Court can examine, which is the implicit shape.

Kind
Implicit
As of
Provision
Practice Direction No. 18 of 2025, ss. 3(3) and 3(5)
Trigger
content_generation

Why the legislator wanted it

Section 2(2)'s statement of aim, the closest thing to a recital in this short Practice Direction.

As of
Quote
The aim is to ensure that AI is used in a manner that upholds the integrity, fairness, and transparency of the judicial process while safeguarding legal and ethical standards.
Source link
https://www.belizejudiciary.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Practice-Direction-No.-18-of-2025-Ethical-Use-of-Generative-Artificial-Intelligence-in-Court-Proceedings.pdf
Source kind
Recital
Purpose
  • provenance_and_authenticity
  • accountability_demonstration

What this law does

Drafted with AI

Drafted with AI from the cited sources under the direction of UnGovr staff. UnGovr holds editorial responsibility for this page. How this site is made

Research summary

Legal information, not legal advice. This is LexLint's own research summary of a public legal source, and it creates no attorney-client relationship. For decisions that matter, consult qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. About LexLint

The Practice Direction, made by the Rules Committee on and effective from , applies to all legal professionals, judges, court personnel, attorneys, parties, witnesses, self-represented persons, and other court users, not only judicial officers.

It prohibits using generative AI to generate the content of an affidavit, witness statement, or other material meant to reflect a deponent's or witness's own evidence, and requires disclosure when AI-generated content is used in court submissions, including legal arguments, precedents, and reports, together with independent verification of any AI-generated legal research before it is relied on.

A court user who relies on AI output assumes full responsibility for its accuracy, relevance, and appropriateness, and non-compliance can result in rejection of AI-generated submissions, ethical review, or other disciplinary measures. The Direction governs the use of AI tools within litigation and does not impose a duty on an AI product or service provider outside that context.

When LexLint raises it

When your app profile says your app generates content with AI.

Back to the example  ·  Lint your app

Page updated .