EcuadorBill on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Administration of Justice (Organic Code of the Judicial Function reform)
Proyecto de Ley Orgánica Reformatoria al Código Orgánico de la Función Judicial para la regulación del uso de la inteligencia artificial en… la administración de justicia (Trámite No. 482649, As. Mónica Salazar), presentado 18 de junio de 2026
An AI sector rules rule binding public and private bodies.
- Audit expectation
- none
As of .
What it requires
- This is a proposed bill and binds nobody yet. If enacted as filed, it would apply to judges, prosecutors, judicial servants and the lawyers and parties who use artificial intelligence tools in Ecuador's justice system.
- Use artificial intelligence tools only as support for case management, document analysis and organizing information, and never to replace the weighing of evidence (proposed Article 32.3).
- Verify the truthfulness, relevance and legality of information an artificial intelligence tool generates before you use it (proposed Article 32.4).
- Record expressly in the proceeding the artificial intelligence tool you used (proposed Article 32.5).
- Do not put information generated by an artificial intelligence tool into a court filing without verifying its truthfulness, relevance and currency where it could mislead the judicial authority (proposed Article 335).
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text, as of .
What it makes you log
Logging duty
As filed, the bill sets no duty to keep a log of an AI system's operations; its proposed Article 32.5 only has the proceeding record the tool used. As a proposed bill this binds nobody yet.
- Kind
- None
- As of
What this law does
Assemblywoman Mónica Salazar presented the bill, under procedure number 482649, on . The Consejo de Administración Legislativa qualified it by a resolution dated that sent it to the Comisión Especializada Permanente de Justicia y Estructura del Estado for treatment. The resolution is dated .
The bill would add to the Organic Code of the Judicial Function a rule that judicial servants may use artificial intelligence tools only as support mechanisms for case management, document analysis and organizing information. It would provide that artificial intelligence can in no case replace the weighing of evidence.
Judges, prosecutors and judicial servants would be administratively liable for their use of artificial intelligence tools, including for the duty to verify the truthfulness, relevance and legality of the information the tools generate. Where artificial intelligence tools are used in judicial proceedings, the proceeding would have to record expressly the tool used.
Using artificial intelligence tools and putting the information they generate into court filings without verifying its truthfulness, relevance and currency, where that could mislead the judicial authority, would be added to the prohibitions in Article 335 of the Code. The law would take effect on its publication in the Official Register.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app makes justice decisions or generates content with AI.