On March 13, 2026, the Superior Court of Justice of the Province of Chubut reversed a ruling issued by the appellate court that had set aside the conviction of a defendant on the grounds that artificial intelligence (\u201cAI\u201d) had been used to draft the judgment.<\/p>\n
The matter originated in June 2025, when the trial court sentenced the defendant to two and a half years\u2019 imprisonment for robbery. The defense appealed that decision, arguing that the judgment was based on an erroneous assessment of the evidence, as well as an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law.<\/p>\n
On October 15 of that year, while reviewing the trial court\u2019s judgment, the Criminal Chamber of Esquel detected that it contained a peculiar phrase: \u201cHere is section IV redrafted, without citations and ready to copy and paste:\u201d. This appeared immediately before the arguments set out by the judge regarding an evidentiary issue raised by the defense.<\/p>\n
That sentence alone was sufficient for the appellate court to conclude that the judgment had been drafted using an AI system. In this regard, it noted that, although the decision might appear to be reasoned, it was impossible to properly verify the process through which the judge had arrived at that decision, which, in its view, affected the right of defense and the guarantee of a natural judge. The Chamber based this reasoning, in part, on Plenary Resolution N\u00ba 5435\/2025 of the provincial supreme court, which sets forth guidelines for the use of AI within the judiciary.<\/p>\n
On those grounds, the appellate court declared the judgment void and ordered that a new trial be held before a different judge.<\/p>\n
That decision was challenged by the Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office, and the matter was therefore brought before the Superior Court of Justice of the Province of Chubut for resolution. In its ruling, the Court emphasized that the system of nullity is exhaustive and restrictive; and is limited to cases involving a substantial impairment of constitutional guarantees or specific prejudice to the parties. In that regard, it held that the mere impossibility of reconstructing how the ruling had been reasoned did not, by itself, prove a replacement of the deliberative process or an actual violation of the right of defense.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the provincial supreme court reversed the judgment insofar as it had declared the decision void and ordered a new trial; and instructed that the case be remanded to the Chamber so that it may decide the appeal, limiting its analysis to the grievances raised by the defense.<\/p>\n