Direction Générale

Droits humains et Etat de droit

3 December 2025 - Palais de l’Europe - Room 6 – 9h30

Draft welcome address from Hanne JUNCHER

Director of Security, Integrity and Rule of Law

Ladies and gentlemen,

Dear participants,

Welcome to the Cyberjustice Europe 2025 Conference on “Virtual Reality and augmented reality in justice: uses and issues”.

The event has been organised jointly by the Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), the Institut Robert Badinter and the Laboratoire de cyberjustice de Montréal. It is supported by the University of Strasbourg.

We are grateful for the opportunity to collaborate for the third time with such exceptional centres of excellence, after the conferences of 2023 on “The new landscape of cyberjustice: between information, misinformation, regulation and democracy” and the conference of 2016 on “Modernised justice systems in line with human rights”.

I would like to thank Directors Valérie Sagant and Karim Benyekhlef for mobilising, from Paris and Montreal respectively, a most impressive line-up of researchers.

Immersive technologies in justice are no longer speculative - they already exist in focused, practical forms. Across Europe, courts and law enforcement bodies are using immersive tools in very concrete ways: 3D crime-scene reconstructions to understand distance and perspective; controlled virtual modules for judicial training; and supportive environments for vulnerable victims preparing for court. These are real, operational examples - far removed from the ‘metaverse’ hype.

These technologies work best when they are limited in scope, transparently designed, and rooted in the fundamentals of justice, which are fairness, accountability, equality of arms, and meaningful human judgment.

Their strength lies not in replacing the human decision-maker, but in giving judges, prosecutors, and victims an additional layer of understanding. The benchmark is always the European Convention on Human Rights – in particular Article 6 and the right to a fair trial.

I would also mention the broader work carried out across the Organisation[1] on immersive and virtual environments - from the Parliamentary Assembly to the CM recommendations and the work of the CDMSI (the CoE’s intergovernmental committee on media, expression, journalism and digital information policy). As well as recent studies on metaverse-related risks.

All this forms part of the wider context for today’s discussion, even if our focus here is strictly on justice sector applications.

I should stress that the Council of Europe’s role in the fields of virtual and augmented reality is not to slow innovation, but to define where it is useful, where it is risky, and where it simply does not belong.

The Framework Convention on AI and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law sets the human rights baseline for public authorities, and this first and only international treaty on AI governance is technology-neutral. In addition, the AI Framework Convention’s supplementary tools - the HUDERIA Methodology and Model - help justice systems assess immersive tools in context. What problem they solve, what risks they introduce, and how to deploy them responsibly.

Today we will examine practical applications of virtual and augmented realities to explore how they can enhance the justice system, and how they can make justice more accessible. 

The use of virtual reality to prepare victims and witnesses for court hearings, for crime scene reconstruction, the integration of augmented reality during trials and remote hearings or for restorative justice. These are only some examples of situations to consider, in order to assess the challenges and opportunities of the interaction between the virtual and the legal world, looking notably at the relevant legal, ethical and governance aspects.

The Council of Europe does not provide a specific legal framework on the use of virtual reality. However, I believe that the principles set out in the Framework Convention on AI can serve by analogy as useful guidelines - alongside the rights set out under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The principles enumerated in the AI Convention are respect for human rights; human dignity and individual autonomy; equality and non-discrimination; respect for privacy and personal data protection; transparency and oversight; accountability and responsibility; and reliability.

More precisely, any digital or immersive technology used in courts must respect human rights, notably the right to a fair trial under Article 6. This requires the right balance between technical innovation and the principles of independence, impartiality and adversarial proceedings.

For instance, as outlined in the very recent Handbook on Human Rights and AI adopted by our Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), the principle of equality of arms suggests the parties to a case must be aware of the role of an AI system in the proceedings, the criteria for its operation and the possible impact on the outcome of the case.

The right to adversarial proceedings is likely to require the ability to challenge an AI system's scientific validity, biases, and potential errors. However, intellectual property rights and trade secret laws may restrict access to privately owned proprietary AI systems used by law enforcement authorities.

In this regard, specific sensitive questions could arise, for example:

• How can the risk of bias be minimised so that immersive evidence does not disproportionately influence perception?
• If biometric and behavioural data is processed, how can compliance with the Council of Europe Data Protection Convention be ensured?
• How can one prevent exclusion and avoid a digital divide, ensure equal access to immersive technology for all parties, and maintain procedural fairness?
• How does one properly verify participants in virtual environments to prevent impersonation or fraud?
• How does one ensure that immersive tools remain explainable and auditable so as to uphold trust and legal certainty?

We also have a number of Council of Europe tools that were developed before immersive technologies existed. From guidance on restorative justice and victims’ support to electronic evidence, assistive technologies and videoconferencing.

Some of them may will need to be revisited, simply because VR and AR introduce forms of perception, presence and evidence that these earlier frameworks did not have to consider.[2]

All these questions do not arise in isolation. They point to a broader institutional responsibility of ensuring that courts, practitioners, and the wider justice ecosystem are equipped to understand and appropriately handle such emerging tools.

Because virtual reconstructions blend empirical data with modelling assumptions and can exert strong psychological effects, they require not only technical standards but also informed professional judgment.

This is precisely where judicial training institutes, academic partners, and justice professionals must step in - to clarify the nature of these tools, develop common safeguards, and cultivate the competencies needed to use immersive environments in a way that strengthens the administration of justice, rather than distorting it.

As these technologies evolve, the challenge is not to predict the future, but to ensure we shape it in a way that remains worthy of public trust.

Technology has the potential to improve the justice system. It is crucial that we remain curious about new technology, and committed to continuously improving our justice systems. Today's discussion will undoubtedly bring us closer to achieving this goal, and I wish you all a fruitful exchange.