LexLint.ioBeta

Know the law your code answers to.

Law / Georgia

Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI, Georgia's signature

This is a Council of Europe treaty, not European Union law. The Council of Europe is a separate international organization, with wider and different membership than the EU.

Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights Democracy and the Rule of Law, CETS No. 225, opened for signature ; signed by Georgia

Signed, with consent not yet expressed, dated , as of .

An AI risk obligations rule binding public and private bodies.

Obligation class
Governance, Disclosure
Audit expectation
continuous
Who audits it
Regulator, Self
Where the report goes
Kept

Where it has got to

The text described here is Certified copy of the Convention in its corrected version per the Committee of Ministers' decision at the 1527th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies. That print is CETS 225, published .

The stage above is recorded at www.coe.int.

More on this stage

The Treaty Office chart of signatures and ratifications, read with a stated status as of , records one ratification in total (the European Union, ) against twenty signatures not followed by ratification, and entry into force requires five ratifications including at least three Council of Europe member states. So the treaty has not entered into force for any state and no state has done more than sign it.

The source link is the Treaty Office's own detail page for the Convention rather than the certified copy itself, because rm.coe.int refuses the crawler outright.

What it requires

  • Comply with the Convention's fundamental principles across an AI system's lifecycle: human dignity and individual autonomy, equality and non-discrimination, respect for privacy and personal data protection, transparency and oversight, accountability and responsibility, reliability, and safe innovation.NIST AI RMFGOVERN 1.2
  • Document information about an AI system and its usage, make it available to affected persons so they can challenge a decision made through or substantially based on the system, and provide an effective way to complain to a competent authority.NIST AI RMFMEASURE 3.3NIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.8
  • Carry out iterative risk and impact assessments of an AI system's actual and potential impacts on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, with sufficient prevention and mitigation measures.NIST AI RMFMAP 5.1

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

In the frameworks

NIST AI RMF
  • GOVERN 1.2The characteristics of trustworthy AI are integrated into organizational policies, processes, procedures, and practices.
  • MAP 5.1Likelihood and magnitude of each identified impact (both potentially beneficial and harmful) based on expected use, past uses of AI systems in similar contexts, public incident reports, feedback from those external to the team that developed or deployed the AI system, or other data are identified and documented.
  • MEASURE 2.8Risks associated with transparency and accountability – as identified in the MAP function – are examined and documented.
  • MEASURE 3.3Feedback processes for end users and impacted communities to report problems and appeal system outcomes are established and integrated into AI system evaluation metrics.
NIST AI 600-1
MIT mitigations Draft
  • 4.1System Documentation
  • 4.2Risk Disclosure
  • 4.6User Rights & Recourse
NIST Privacy Framework
  • GV.PO-P2Processes to instill organizational privacy values within system/product/service development and operations are established and in place.
FINOS AIGF
ETSI EN 304 223
  • 5.1.3-2Threats developers cannot resolve are passed to operators and on to end-users.
  • 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

Regulator, Data subject

What the log must hold

System identity, Decision basis

Logging duty

The Convention never uses the words log or record. Article 14(2)(a) obliges each Party to adopt measures ensuring that relevant information about AI systems that can significantly affect human rights, and their usage, is documented and provided to authorised bodies, and Article 16(2)(f) requires the risk-management measures to include documentation of risks, impacts and the risk management approach. That information cannot be provided or shown without a record the operator keeps. The duty binds the Party to adopt measures; it reaches an operator only through the Party's implementing law, and Georgia has not ratified.

Kind
Implicit
As of
Provision
Article 14(2)(a) and (b); Article 16(2)(f) and Article 16(3)
Trigger
  • high_risk_systems
  • automated_decisions

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

Georgia signed the Convention on . Under Article 30(3) the Convention enters into force on the first day of the month following three months after five signatories, including at least three Council of Europe member states, have expressed their consent to be bound by it. The Convention covers the use of AI systems by public authorities, including private actors acting on their behalf, and by private actors generally.

It requires that activities within an AI system's lifecycle comply with fundamental principles including human dignity and individual autonomy, equality and non-discrimination, respect for privacy and personal data protection, transparency and oversight, accountability and responsibility, reliability, and safe innovation.

It requires documenting information about an AI system and its usage and making that information available to affected persons, sufficient to let them challenge a decision made through or substantially based on the system, and it requires an effective route to lodge a complaint with a competent authority.

It requires carrying out iterative risk and impact assessments of an AI system's actual and potential impacts on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, with sufficient prevention and mitigation measures, and it lets a Party ban or impose a moratorium on certain AI applications. The Council of Europe's own tracker lists Georgia among the Convention's signatories rather than among the states that have ratified it.

When LexLint raises it

When your app profile says your app crawls the web, deploys a chatbot, generates content with AI, makes high-risk automated decisions or trains models.

Back to the example  ·  Lint your app

Page updated .