Opening Plenary: Working Together for a Human-Centred Digital Future – Parliamentary Cooperation for Democratic Digital Governance

Summary

This discussion focused on Parliamentary Cooperation for Digital Governance, examining how parliamentarians can shape AI regulation and digital democracy across different regions. The session was led by Miapetra Kumpula-Natri, Vice President of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, and featured speakers from Europe, Africa, and other regions discussing the intersection of artificial intelligence, human rights, and democratic governance.

Mario Hernandez-Ramos presented the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, the first international treaty regulating AI based on human rights, democracy, and rule of law. He emphasized that AI systems are not neutral or objective but contain biases and interests of their designers, making regulation essential. The convention faced challenges in balancing detailed regulation with achieving consensus among 64 diverse countries, ultimately establishing general principles like human dignity, transparency, and accountability while requiring minimal obligations for private sector compliance.

Parliamentary representatives from Turkey, Tanzania, Kenya, Croatia, and Greece shared regional perspectives on digital governance challenges. African parliamentarians highlighted significant concerns about technology-facilitated gender-based violence against women leaders, citing examples of AI tools being misused to create degrading images that could undermine women’s political participation. They emphasized the need for global standards that prevent tech companies from applying different ethical standards in developing countries compared to developed nations.

European parliamentarians stressed the importance of balancing regulation with innovation, arguing that ethical frameworks can actually support rather than hinder technological development. They advocated for digital spaces to be treated as democratic spaces requiring transparency, accountability, and public interest obligations. Several speakers emphasized that regulation should focus on use cases and risks rather than the technology itself, similar to how other sectors like automotive and pharmaceutical industries are regulated for safety. The discussion concluded with calls for increased international cooperation, capacity building for parliamentarians to understand digital technologies, and the need to ensure AI development serves democracy rather than undermining it.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **AI Framework Convention and International Cooperation**: The discussion centered on the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence – the first international treaty regulating AI based on human rights, democracy, and rule of law. Speakers emphasized the need for global cooperation and common standards, with 14 countries already signing but requiring 5 ratifications for enforcement.

– **Balancing Innovation and Regulation**: A key debate emerged around whether regulation stifles innovation or enhances it. Participants argued against the “false dichotomy” between regulation and innovation, comparing AI governance to existing regulations in other sectors (cars, planes, medicines) and emphasizing that regulation should focus on use cases rather than the technology itself.

– **Digital Democracy and Civic Participation**: The conversation explored how digital tools can enhance democratic participation through increased transparency, broader civic engagement, and cost-effective outreach, while also addressing risks like misinformation, digital divides, and technology-facilitated gender-based violence against women in politics.

– **Global South Perspectives and Digital Inequality**: African parliamentarians highlighted the disparity in AI governance between developed and developing countries, noting that tech companies often apply different standards depending on their operating location, and called for capacity building and synergy between different international frameworks.

– **Parliamentary Role in Digital Governance**: Speakers emphasized parliamentarians’ unique position as “shapers of change” who translate principles into laws, ensure democratic accountability, and bridge the gap between technological innovation and human rights protection through national legislation and international cooperation.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how parliamentarians can effectively guide digital governance to ensure AI and digital technologies serve democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. The session focused on translating international frameworks into national action while fostering cooperation between parliaments globally to address both opportunities and challenges in the digital age.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, characterized by urgency tempered with optimism. While speakers acknowledged serious challenges (particularly regarding gender-based violence in digital spaces and global inequalities), the overall atmosphere was solution-oriented and forward-looking. The tone remained consistently professional and inclusive, with strong emphasis on international cooperation and shared responsibility, reflecting the diplomatic nature of the parliamentary assembly setting.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Miapetra Kumpula-Natri** – Member of Parliament in Finland, Vice President of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, former Member of the European Parliament for 10 years, IT engineer by background

– **Mario Hernandez Ramos** – Chair of the Council of Europe Committee on Artificial Intelligence, Constitutional law professor

– **Zeynep Yıldız** – Member of Parliament of Turkey, Representative of Ankara, Turkey, representing Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe

– **Neema Lugangira** – Member of Parliament from Tanzania, Chairwoman of the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance

– **Marijana Puljak** – Member of Parliament in Croatia, Member of the PACE delegation, IT engineer with 25 years of experience

– **Maria-Nefeli Vasileiou Chatziioannidou** – Member of Parliament from Greece, Member of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

– **Esther Passaris** – Member of Pan-African Parliament, Member of Parliament of Kenya

– **Marco Emanuele** – Parliamentary Assembly of Mediterranean Senior Research (participating online)

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions during the session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Wout de Natris-van der Borght** – Coordinator of Internet Standards, Security and Safety (dynamic coalition of the IGF)

– **Representative from Georgia** – Member of the personal data protection service of Georgia, member of the committee of artificial intelligence

– **Jan Erbgut** – Member of the program committee, consultant on data protection and new technology, affiliated with the University of Geneva

# Parliamentary Cooperation for Digital Governance: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

This discussion on Parliamentary Cooperation for Digital Governance brought together parliamentarians from across Europe, Africa, and the Mediterranean to examine how legislative bodies can effectively shape artificial intelligence regulation and digital democracy. Led by Miapetra Kumpula-Natri, Vice President of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly and former Member of the European Parliament with 25+ years as a legislator, the session featured diverse perspectives from constitutional law experts, technology professionals, and elected representatives from multiple continents.

The discussion centered on the intersection of artificial intelligence, human rights, and democratic governance, with particular focus on how parliamentarians can translate international frameworks into national action while fostering global cooperation. A foundational principle established early in the discussion was Kumpula-Natri’s assertion that “what is illegal offline, what is illegal on the streets should not be legal in the digital sphere.”

## The Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence

### Foundational Principles and Approach

Mario Hernandez Ramos, Chair of the Council of Europe Committee on Artificial Intelligence and constitutional law professor, presented the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence as a groundbreaking achievement in international AI governance. This represents the first international treaty regulating AI based on human rights, democracy, and rule of law principles, with multiple countries having signed the convention, though it requires five ratifications for enforcement.

Hernandez Ramos challenged a fundamental misconception about AI neutrality, stating: “We think that artificial intelligence is like maths, mathematics. Maths are natural, maths are objective, but this is wrong. Artificial intelligence is not natural, is not objective, not at all. There are interests of the designers, they are biased. Not only the design, also on the data set.” This perspective established the philosophical foundation for why regulation is necessary, emphasizing that AI systems contain the biases and interests of their creators.

### Regulatory Framework and Development Process

The convention faced significant challenges in balancing detailed regulation with achieving consensus among diverse stakeholders. The committee included 64 representatives from industry, academia, and civil society, plus representatives from 46 European countries, the EU, and other non-European countries including the USA, Canada, Australia, and Japan. This broad participation enabled global input but required careful compromise to achieve agreement.

Hernandez Ramos advocated for multiple complementary regulatory instruments at different levels—UN, Council of Europe, EU, and national—rather than relying on a single comprehensive framework. He emphasized that “regulation is the European answer to solving problems through democratic processes,” defending the proactive approach against criticism that regulation stifles innovation. The framework also introduced the HUDERIA methodology (human rights, democracy, and rule of law impact assessment) as a tool for evaluating AI systems.

## Regional Perspectives and Urgent Challenges

### African Parliamentary Insights on Gender-Based Violence

The African parliamentarians brought particularly urgent perspectives to the discussion, highlighting significant concerns about technology-facilitated gender-based violence. Neema Lugangira, Member of Parliament from Tanzania and Chairwoman of the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance, provided stark examples of AI misuse, particularly referencing the AI tool Grok on Twitter X.

Lugangira explained: “Very recently, we have seen… there is the AI known as Grok on the Twitter X. And this Grok, a person can take a picture of a female leader and post it on the Twitter X… and tell Grok, I want you to undress, make her wear a bikini. And the Grok would do it… Young women are not going to want to put themselves through that. More women are not going to want to put themselves through that.”

This example illustrated how AI tools can be weaponized to create degrading images that could undermine women’s political participation, representing what Esther Passaris, Member of Pan-African Parliament and Member of Parliament of Kenya, called “a direct assault on democracy.”

### Global Digital Divide and Corporate Double Standards

A critical concern raised by African parliamentarians was the disparity in how technology companies operate across different regions. Lugangira highlighted that “tech companies will operate in a certain way, adhering to the EU AI Act. But the very same companies, if they operate in the African continent, where we do not have similar act in place, all of those regulations and good behaviour is thrown out of the window.”

This observation exposed a fundamental challenge in global AI governance: while regional regulations like the EU AI Act provide strong protections in developed countries, the same companies may abandon these standards when operating in regions with less robust regulatory frameworks. The African representatives called for minimum global standards that would prevent such double standards.

### African Union and Continental Initiatives

The discussion highlighted significant progress in African AI governance frameworks, including the African Union AI Strategy endorsed July 18, 2024, and the Association of African Election Authorities guidelines endorsed February 27, 2024. Lugangira also mentioned her role as co-rapporteur for the IPU Resolution on Artificial Intelligence adopted October 17, 2024, demonstrating active African leadership in global AI governance initiatives.

## European Parliamentary Perspectives

### Balancing Regulation and Innovation

Marijana Puljak, Member of Parliament in Croatia with 25 years of IT engineering experience, strongly rejected the notion that regulation and innovation are mutually exclusive. “Europe can and must both regulate and innovate—this is not a false choice,” Puljak argued. She emphasized that “regulation without support leads to exclusion, but regulation with right tools leads to empowerment,” advocating for practical support mechanisms to help smaller entities navigate regulatory compliance.

Maria-Nefeli Vasileiou Chatziioannidou, Member of Parliament from Greece, provided a unique generational perspective, noting that “our first democracy was always being part digital. Our first political debates happened in political forums… Our civic identities didn’t only transform through school and public institutions, but by the messy, often thrilling, but often toxic environment of the internet.”

### Transparency and Accountability

Zeynep Yıldız, Member of Parliament of Turkey, emphasized that “parliamentarians are shapers of change who turn principles into laws and ensure democratic accountability.” She noted that “transparency is a core value for concrete approaches to artificial intelligence” and that “algorithms are not transparent enough, creating problems for lawmakers.”

Vasileiou Chatziioannidou complemented this by arguing that “platforms should not operate with opaque algorithms based solely on profit motives” and that “digital spaces should be reclaimed as democratic spaces with transparent governance and accountability.”

## Practical Implementation and National Action

### State of AI Assessments

Kumpula-Natri provided a concrete example of national implementation, explaining that Finland conducts “state of AI” assessments twice yearly in parliament to monitor progress and identify emerging issues. This model was highlighted as a practical approach other countries could adopt.

Puljak suggested expanding this concept, advocating for regular assessments and developing visual interactive tools to help small startups and public institutions navigate AI regulation compliance, addressing concerns about regulatory burden on smaller entities.

### Digital Literacy and Capacity Building

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of digital literacy and civic resilience. Vasileiou Chatziioannidou argued that “digital resilience means social and civic resilience, not just cybersecurity,” emphasizing the need to empower citizens to navigate information critically and protect themselves from manipulation.

Lugangira called for “mandatory digital literacy on financial scams and child protection,” while Marco Emanuele, participating online from the Parliamentary Assembly of Mediterranean, emphasized that “investment in digital literacy on a global scale is crucial for democratic resilience.”

## Emerging Challenges and Regulatory Responses

### Platform Accountability and Fact-Checking

Marco Emanuele raised concerns about recent developments in platform governance, specifically mentioning Meta’s decision to abolish internal fact-checking mechanisms. This highlighted ongoing challenges in ensuring platform accountability and the potential retreat from content moderation standards.

### Regulatory Timing and Technological Pace

A representative from Georgia’s personal data protection service raised concerns about whether “the current speed at which we are travelling [is] sufficient to catch up with the new possibilities and challenges related to AI,” particularly as technology advances toward “general AI or super AI models.”

Jan Erbgut, a member of the programme committee and consultant on data protection and new technology, challenged the proactive regulatory approach from the audience, arguing that “regulatory compliance costs can exceed innovation investment, creating bureaucratic burden.” This created productive tension with speakers’ advocacy for comprehensive proactive regulation.

## Regulatory Innovation Balance and Comparative Approaches

### Rejecting False Dichotomies

A significant theme throughout the discussion was rejecting the perceived trade-off between regulation and innovation. Kumpula-Natri supported this by arguing that “regulation should focus on use cases rather than technology itself, similar to how medicines are regulated for safety.”

Wout de Natris-van der Borght, Coordinator of Internet Standards, Security and Safety, provided a compelling analogy: “There’s not a car that goes on the road without regulation in place, there’s not a plane allowed in the air without regulation and oversight, there’s not an appliance that we use in our home that does not have a form of regulation. The internet is here for over 30 years and we still allow it to go on the digital road without brakes, without a safety net.”

This comparison reframed the regulation debate by highlighting that safety standards are routinely accepted in other sectors without being seen as barriers to innovation.

## International Cooperation and Future Directions

### Parliamentary Networks and Capacity Building

The discussion highlighted the importance of cooperation between different parliamentary networks, including the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly and the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance. Speakers emphasized that parliamentarians need capacity building to understand digital technology and emerging technologies.

### Ratification and Implementation Priorities

The discussion identified several concrete action items, beginning with the need for national parliaments to ratify the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI, with at least five ratifications required for enforcement. Speakers emphasized the crucial role of national parliamentarians in this process.

Building stronger partnerships between parliamentary networks, particularly between European and African parliamentary bodies working on digital governance, was identified as essential for knowledge transfer and coordinated responses to transnational digital challenges.

## Unresolved Challenges

### Global Standards and Enforcement

The challenge of ensuring consistent global standards remained largely unresolved. While there was broad agreement on the need for minimum global behavioral standards for technology companies, the mechanisms for achieving and enforcing such standards were not clearly established.

### Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence

The discussion of AI-enabled gender-based violence against women leaders emerged as one of the most urgent unresolved challenges, with concrete examples provided but solutions remaining to be developed.

## Conclusion

This discussion revealed remarkable consensus across regional and professional boundaries on fundamental principles—human rights, democratic governance, and the need for AI regulation—while highlighting significant implementation challenges. The conversation successfully moved beyond technical frameworks to address human, democratic, and social implications of AI governance.

Key insights included the rejection of AI neutrality, the urgent threat of technology-facilitated gender-based violence, the need to address global regulatory disparities, and the importance of viewing regulation and innovation as complementary rather than competing priorities. The session demonstrated the crucial role parliamentarians play as “shapers of change” who must bridge international frameworks with national implementation.

The path forward requires continued international cooperation, capacity building, ratification of international frameworks like the Council of Europe Convention, and commitment to ensuring that digital technologies enhance rather than threaten human dignity and democratic participation. As Esther Passaris emphasized: “A digital future without human dignity at its core is not acceptable.”

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: OK. Dear participants. Let me have an introduction for the session we will have now. It is the Parliamentary Cooperation for Digital Governance, led by this house. So if I introduce myself very shortly, my name is Miapetra Kumpula-Natri, I’m a member of the parliament in Finland and I’m vice president of this assembly when we gather here together from 46 parliaments, Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. So it’s an honour to take part in this EuroDIG. I have been a veteran for that and I must introduce myself also that I was a member of the European Parliament for 10 years until last summer. So I have been a veteran taking part in the EuroDIG and IGF also, which many of you also have been actively working on. So very warmly welcome to our plenary hall where we have the next session in June. Very good speeches, I’m happy you stay with us and after a few introductory speeches we will have an opportunity for a dialogue. So with me I have parliamentarians here and then also in the audience they will take floor. So idea is that we can really have a dialogue with parliamentarians and pass on the message via parliaments as well. So many good speeches in the opening session, so I will not take your time here long. We all know that digital technologies increasingly shape our life daily. Our democracies, economies and societies are full of opportunities but we also see flaws already and as in more than 20 years I have been legislator, so I also say to many people I’m not afraid also to do some regulation because never has any sector to come to please that please regulate me. It was not environment, it was not climate change, it was not pushing the human rights aside if it was benefited by some big companies. So we need to have this dialogue, we need to have democracies to take the decisions where the society go. But as explained here it is not always very simple but I pass on the message that we were doing in the European Parliament also. What is illegal offline, what is illegal on the streets should not be legal in the digital sphere. Most of the issues are developed together in the society via democratic decision making so that we have the rights that we enjoy today, so why to destroy that when we go online. So building democracies inclusive and human-centered also in the digital governance should be grounded in the cooperation and anchored in the international standards. So today’s session is about what works, not just identifying challenges but also highlighting the positive roles parliamentarians can play to harness digital tools for transparency, participation and rights protection. So let’s explore together how we can collectively shape a digital future that serves all. So the first speaker on the introducing the AI treaty, a treaty for everyone. We will look the most important recent developments into international digital governance. The adoption mentioned in the opening session framework convention on the artificial intelligence by Council of Europe, which is the first international treaty to regulate AI based on human rights, privacy and rule of law. So this blueprint offers for ensuring that AI development puts people first, give parliamentarians a unique role for translating these standards into the national actions. So we invite Mario Hernandez-Ramos on the right from my side, Chair of the Council of Europe Committee on the Artificial Intelligence to give his introductory speech, please.

Mario Hernandez Ramos: Thank you very much. Thank you very much to the Parliamentary Assembly for the invitation to be here and also to the Eurodig organization, it’s a pleasure. So any time when I start talking and giving a lecture about artificial intelligence and democracy, I always cast a question. Are we really aware how present is artificial intelligence in our daily lives? The answer is quite weird because we don’t really think about it. We use it. We use it daily. Sometimes we use it without being aware that we are using these artificial intelligence systems and sometimes we don’t know that we are using these systems. So in the essence, we don’t have a critical view to the role that artificial intelligence is playing in our daily lives and this is crucial for democracy values. Why is this? Because artificial intelligence systems give us easy solutions for complex problems. So we don’t get into a conversation, a critical conversation, we just accept them. But sometimes that can be a little bit problematic. We solve problems without trading off. But this is a misconception behind this way of thinking. We think that artificial intelligence is like maths, mathematics. Maths are natural, maths are objective, but this is wrong. Artificial intelligence is not natural, is not objective, not at all. There are interests of the designers, they are biased. Not only the design, also on the data set. So even many people, many legal actors, even in the public sector, because they don’t have this critical thinking or critical view, they use artificial intelligence without being aware of the consequences and the risk that the use of artificial intelligence systems pose to fundamental rights, fundamental democracy, and rule of law principles. Once we are very clear that artificial intelligence pose risk on fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law, it is clear that we need to regulate it. But this need for regulation is not a specific debate. Sometimes there has been a debate whether to regulate or not to regulate artificial intelligence. The reason for that is that maybe regulation undermines the innovation of the technology. And of course, this is a false dichotomy like the Human Rights Commissioner and the Secretary General just pointed out. Since artificial intelligence is everywhere and every time, sooner or later the problems will arise. If there is not specific regulation, judges will have to innovate in their solutions, will have to innovate legal standards. And that is quite problematic from several principles of the rule of law and also from the democracy. The Court of Europe is leading the regulation on these matters. Now we have the first ever legally binding international treaty on artificial intelligence and human rights, democracy and rule of law. But it was not an easy task. Committee on Artificial Intelligence faced different dilemmas and very difficult ones. For the sake of time, please allow me to focus on the two mains from my point of view. The first one is that we have to face is how detailed should the convention be? The more detailed or the more legally detailed, the better for the sake of principle of legality and legal certainty. The Committee of Artificial Intelligence is composed of a wide branch of actors. There are 64 representatives of industry, academy and civil society, 46 European countries of the Council of Europe, the European Union itself, and very different countries with very different… different backgrounds, legal backgrounds, cultural backgrounds, economic backgrounds like USA, Canada, and Australia, Latin American countries like Mexico, Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Peru, and other countries like Holy See, Israel, and Japan. So the more legally specific the Framework Convention is or will be, the more difficult to reach an agreement among these different countries. So the final decision, it was not an easy one, was to uphold and agree on common and general principles more than a detailed regulation. But those principles are essential to any kind of regulation for artificial intelligence focused on human values. Principles like human dignity, individual autonomy, transparency, accountability, responsibility, equality and no discrimination, reliability, and procedural, several procedural safeguards. So the second challenge, and this is even a more difficult one, was the issue about the scope of the Framework Convention. There was an issue regarding national security. Surprisingly, this issue was solved not very easily, but quite, not fast, we cannot say fast, but most of the countries were quite in agreement to leave the national security out of the scope, but also making reference that any kind of action for the sake of national security should respect human rights, democracy, and rule of law. But the main problematic point regarding the scope was regarding the private sector, how to regulate the private sector, the activity of the private sector when they are dealing with artificial intelligence. One position was that there was the public and the private sector should have the same standards and the same principles. The other position was in favor of allow different regulation for private sector and public sector. The final decision was to agree on a minimal obligation for private sector, different from the public sector, and this is about to address risk and impact assessment. But this is a minimal that the state can accept, but the states can increase, so it’s not compulsory minimal standards. It’s a minimal standard, but the states can increase obligations for their private sector. So everybody, every party, sorry, had to trade off in order to reach an agreement and in order to become the treaty a reality. But above all, there was a leading idea in the negotiation and drafting process. We needed to be able to agree on common standards and principles on regulating artificial intelligence to give a united and universal political message to the world, that we could agree on common perception about the risk of AI and that we don’t need to depend on national frontiers and legal perceptions. Now that the Framework Convention is finished, another step must be taken. So far, 14 countries, including USA, United States of America, Canada, Japan, United Kingdom, Israel, European Union, on behalf of 27 countries, have signed the Framework Convention, but we need five ratifications in order that the Framework Convention gets enforced. We need five ratifications, at least, that these principles will become compulsory, and the national parliamentarians play a key role in this key step. Also, in taking into account the Framework Convention in the national legislation about artificial intelligence, only if we are truly convinced that we must protect human rights and defend democracy and rule of law with a common and shared understanding, will it be possible for us to protect humanity and its way of life based on human values and respect from dangers that artificial intelligence poses. Those we already know, but above all, those are yet to come. Thank you very much.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you so much, and remember, it’s good to have an expert on the Convention with us for the debate later on, so be prepared to pose questions and comments. Next phase, we have the parliamentary perspective, and not only from Europe, but also from Africa. How the parliamentarians guide this change on the ground. So next speakers will have insights from the regional and international perspective. The first, let me give the floor to Zeynep Yildiz, is that the way to pronounce? My colleague from this plenary hall, representing Turkey, Member of Parliament of Turkey, and she will have the first round, and then we go for Neema, please.

Zeynep Yıldız: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, actually, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, actually, this is a really great honor for me to be there. Let me introduce myself, firstly, I’m Zeynep Yildiz, I’m representative of Ankara, Turkey, and also I’m representing Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe here, and again, it’s a great honor to be with you today, and to speak on behalf of Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe, a unique platform that brings together parliamentarians from all 46 member states, we represent different countries, cultures, and political views, but we share common commitment to democracy, human rights, and rule of law, values that are more important than ever in the digital age. Now, it had been a significant time since Alan Turing or Cahit Arif first asked, can machines think? The dynamic between society, law, and the economy has long been at the core of humanity’s most profound intellectual inquiries. But now, as the digital world continues to evolve at a rapid speed, as parliamentarians, we need to take concrete steps to make sure this AI economy evolves human-centered. We know that the dynamic between society, law, and the economy has long been discussed which one follows the others, and our assembly has worked hard to make sure that this transformation is grounded on democratic principles. We have long believed that artificial intelligence and digital technologies must serve people, not replace or undermine them. To have legal regulation with enforcement is only a possibility to make decisions collectively on the global level. PACE was actually one of the first parliamentary bodies to call for a binding international treaty on artificial intelligence. In our reports and debates, we have highlighted the need for strong safeguards, human oversight, clear accountability, and full transparency in how these technologies are developed and used. I’m proud that assembly support played an important part in shaping the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, the first international treaty of its kind. It’s a big step forward, and one we will continue to support by ensuring parliaments play their role for its ratification and implementation. But we know that our work doesn’t stop at AI. We have also looked closely at how digital technologies affect democracy more broadly, and in particular, how the freedom of expression and digital inclusion are influenced by content moderation practices, algorithmic biases, and online surveillance. To name but a few, we have sounded the alarm about threats such as online propaganda, disinformation, defects, and spyware. And we’ve spoken out. As parliamentarians, we have a special role to play. We are not just observers of the change, we are shapers of it. We turn principles into laws, and we help make sure that democratic accountability keeps up with technological innovation. Looking ahead, we will keep building partnerships with international parliaments, with civil society, and with international networks to make sure that digital governance remains truly democratic. We fully support digital progress, but even more than that, we believe in protecting human dignity, freedom and equality. Let’s make sure technology works for people and not the other way around. I would like to thank again the Presidency of Luxembourg for gathering us today under the umbrella of EuroDIG, and also the Council of Europe for having CAI, because we know that the Council of Europe is also one of the first international institutions directly focusing on artificial intelligence. We know that a global legal framework is needed in order to have enforcement power. Thank you for your participation.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you so much, and welcome from African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance. I know, very active network, very concrete also. Now the Chairwoman Neema Lugangira, my good friend, welcome on board and bring us greetings from your network and activity. Neema is a Member of Parliament from Tanzania.

Neema Lugangira: Thank you very much. I would like to first obviously recognize my dear friend, Honorable Omia Petra, Vice President of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, and I also wish to take this opportunity to congratulate you on this important role, but I must also express our sincere gratitude to the Council of Europe through the great leadership of the Secretary General, Alan, for ensuring that during this session we will also be able to include those of us coming from the Global South, and for recognizing the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance, and I would like to recognize my colleague, Honorable Esther Posaris, Member of Parliament from Kenya, and believe it or not, we have literally just arrived from a 20-hour flight and two stops of train station, and do not ask where did we change to look this fabulous. Don’t ask us that question. But we are here and looking good. But that goes to show the commitment of parliamentarians in making sure that we make it here on time, and we are part of this conversation. I would also like to thank Albina and your entire team from the Council of Europe, and also my good friend Sandra from the EuroDIG for all your support. I also see in the room that we have Mr. Chengetai from the IGF Secretariat. You know, the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance was established through the endorsement of the UN IGF Secretariat, so we are very grateful for the continued support. Now, today’s conversation is very important because we’re talking about a critical component, and as my colleagues have mentioned, we have a number of moving factors. We have the Council of Europe Convention on Artificial Intelligence, which was endorsed on 17th May 2024. But we also have the Inter-Parliamentary Union Resolution on Artificial Intelligence that was adopted on 17th October 2024, of which I am one of the co-rapporteurs. But we also have the African Union Artificial Intelligence Strategy that was endorsed on 18th July 2024. And alongside that, because the topic here today is about democracy, the Association of African Election Authorities also recognized the role that digital tools play in elections. And on 27th February 2024, the Association of African Election Authorities endorsed guidelines for digital and social media use in African elections. So all of these moving things, and there’s a number of other things that are ongoing. And I think the most important factor here is to make sure that all of these don’t go in silo. We need to bring it together because artificial intelligence, digital, it’s cross-border. And I think having such a conversation whereby we can have parliamentarians from different parts of the world coming together, sharing experiences and learnings, it will make sure that when we’re trying to implement these different conventions and policies and acts, there will be synergy between the parliamentarians so that we can make sure whatever we aim to put in place can actually be implemented. For example, a lot of the digital companies and AI companies come from the Global North, that is developed countries, whereas they also operate in the Global South, where we are developing countries. And we may not have in place the same policy and regulatory framework. So I can take, for example, within the EU, we have the EU AI Act. And tech companies will operate in a certain way, adhering to the EU AI Act. But the very same companies, if they operate in the African continent, where we do not have similar act in place, all of those regulations and good behavior is thrown out of the window. But if we are working together and we have this synergy, we can try and say how can we also include, perhaps within the EU Act and other acts that are being developed, that there should be a minimum level of acceptable global behavior, irrespective of where the company operates, as long as the company originates from a certain country. So those are things that we can discuss together. But also going very quickly, we recognize that there is great potential of using digital tools to enhance digital governance. And very quickly, I’ll just share a few important opportunities. First opportunity, and this is linked to us as parliamentarians in our parliaments, the use of digital tools can strengthen participatory democracy by reaching a wider audience in the society, as well as, and that will strengthen civic participation. But it can also be cost effective. Instead of having to go and have rallies in each and every ward or each and every area, you could perhaps hold those using digital tools, so it will reduce the costs. But it also increases engagement, as well as reach that I just mentioned, it supports informed decisions, and it strengthens community partnerships, improves transparency, but also attracts the younger generation to participate in civic education. However, like anything, there are challenges. And challenges for democracy in particular, is that it can increase, you know, the inequality in digital civic engagement, especially those coming from rural areas, or those who have limited internet connectivity. But at the same time, you know, the digital divide can be even broader. There can be information overload, as well as misinformation. But there can also be issues of silencing and surveillance. That is another challenge. And the other challenge is that it creates an opportunity for a scary level of technology facilitated gender-based violence, in particular, on women in politics. Very recently, we have seen, I’m not sure if that is the case on this side of the world, but we have seen on our side of the world, there is the AI known as Grok on the Twitter X. And this Grok, a person can take a picture of a female leader and post it on the Twitter X, rather, and tell Grok, excuse the language that I’m going to use, tell Grok, I want you to undress, make her wear a bikini. And the Grok would do it. And this has been done for a number of women leaders from the African continent, which is something that should not be allowed to happen. But it is happening. And when leaders see that, how are you going to protect yourself as a leader? Our photos, this is a professional photo, you have been dressed professionally, someone uses it, and if it goes to your constituency in your region, how are you going to say that it wasn’t me? It’s a created picture. So, in the long run, what does that do? It will diminish, and it will take us, the democratic space of increasing the number of women in democracy will be taken back. Young women are not going to want to put themselves through that. More women are not going to want to put themselves through that. And those of us that are there, you’re constantly now scared, what do you do? You’re in the public eye, but you’re just waiting for Grok to undress you and place you wherever you have to. And they can time it. If that happens when you’re at the peak of your election campaign, people can lose seats, especially in the African continent where the culture and the norms and the others. Those are the downsides of this topic. Obviously, as much as there’s great potential of use of digital tools, artificial intelligence towards accelerating social economic development, this is across sectors, health sector, education sector, agriculture, disaster risk reduction, you name it. But we also have to address and talk about these risks. In order for us to harness the benefits of emerging technologies such as AI and others that will come forward, we need to have a clear policy and regulatory framework in place. A policy and regulatory framework in place that will not hinder the innovative side, but it will protect and ensure that there is safe use of emerging technology, there is ethical use, and we protect the users. The users and the non-users are also protected. So as I conclude, what I would like to call for is to see how can we make sure that all of these different efforts that are ongoing can be domesticated at national level. How can we support developing countries to take all of these different moving blocks and come up with robust national artificial intelligence policies and national artificial intelligence legislation that will contribute towards strengthening the AI and the use of the digital era, ensuring that we harness the benefits while we protect democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. And with that said, I think it creates a good opportunity for the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to collaborate with other parliamentary networks such as the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance so that we can continue to have exchange and learning with each other, and by doing so, we will be able to address these ethical issues, to leverage on emerging technologies such as AI, and to foster collaborative governance. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you so much. Yes, as many said, it is not something in the future, but it is where are we now. Could have something done before by regulating or framework or just good attitude of everyone on board? Are we too late or are we doing something too early? All that is a lively debate everywhere. We go further now with some exchange with parliamentarians in the audience, and then we open the floor for everyone. But then parliamentary voices here prepared with us are some, so that I will give the floor now first to Marijana Puljak, who is also in her room, she knows, she is a member of parliament in Croatia and also a member of the PASE delegation and this assembly. So Marijana, please.

Marijana Puljak: Thank you so much. I like to start with the sentence that is behind you that says safeguarding human rights by balancing regulation and innovation. So balancing, that is the word we often hear, especially in Europe. So many times we heard that sentence that Europe likes to regulate while others innovate, but I believe this is really a false choice. We can and we must, we must do both. I must say at the beginning that I am by vocation IT engineer, so for 25 years I was working as IT engineer and then becoming member of parliament in Croatia, and I see artificial intelligence not as a threat, but as a historic opportunity to create smarter, more transparent and more inclusive democracies. Yes, of course we need ethical guardians, rights-based frameworks and democratic oversight. In that sense we have excellent tool now, Framework Convention by Council of Europe, but we also need courage to innovate in the public sector, in local communities, in education, in small start-ups. That’s where the real democratic transformation begins. I can now maybe tell an example from my city where I come from, city of Split in Croatia. We are already using artificial intelligence in city administration. We are applying data and digital tools for smart city solutions, make urban planning more transparent, improve public services and involve citizens in decision-making. These are really early steps, but they prove that digital innovation can serve democracy, not undermine it. Also in Croatia we see this contrast clearly. Our IT industry is an industry, it’s very, I would say, healthy, fast-moving, creative and internationally successful, from AI start-ups to cyber security companies, etc. But the public sector is still catching up. We need stronger political will to modernize institutions, accelerate digital transformation and build real bridges between innovation and regulation. This morning on one of the workshops here I asked how can we help small start-ups and public institutions navigate the complex web of AI regulation, including the new framework. The response was, I must say, what I hear was encouraging. Some visual interactive tools are being developed, or at least we are thinking of developing it to guide local governments and innovators through compliance. And that’s exactly what we need. Because regulation without support leads to exclusion, but regulation with right tools leads to empowerment. So I would conclude with saying let’s reject the false choice between regulation and innovation, let’s balance them with a purpose, and let’s make sure that AI doesn’t happen to democracies, but with democracy and in service for all its citizens. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Then I have another question, or ask for the floor beforehand, is Maria-Nefeli Vasileiou Chatziioannidou from Greece, also member of this Assembly. Member from Greece, your floor please.

Maria-Nefeli Vasileiou Chatziioannidou: Hello, my name is really difficult, I’m from Greece, so it’s a 14-letter surname. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a great pleasure to be here today, not only as a parliamentarian, but as someone who was born in two parallel worlds, in the digital and the analog world. For us, under the age of 40, our first, let’s say, democracy was always being part digital. Our first political debates happened in political forums, and maybe in comment sections as well. Our first movement started with hashtags, our civic identities didn’t only transform through school and public institutions, but by the messy, often thrilling, but often toxic environment of the internet. And yet, we are all very worried. We are worried because we see people engaging and disengaging, not because they don’t care about how technology is going, but because they don’t feel seen and they don’t feel safe. I see young people mobilizing around issues like climate change, human rights, artificial intelligence, but they really lose their faith in the systems meant to support them. I see people trying only to be drawn later by hate, by misinformation, and by algorithms that reward rage and hate over reason. And this, I believe, is the paradox of digital democracy we are experiencing at the moment. We are more connected than ever, but democratic participation feels more fragile, more fragmented, and sometimes futile. So what we can do, what we can do, all of us, but also as parliamentarians? First, we need to reclaim digital spaces as democratic spaces. That means platforms should not be free to operate opaque algorithms or only on profit motives of a handful of tech companies. We need transparent government, we need stronger content accountability, and clear public interest obligations for platforms that now function as our new towns, our new neighborhoods, that we interact online. Second, we need digital resilience, and by meaning digital resilience, I don’t mean only cyber security. It is social and civic resilience. We must empower citizens, especially our youth, to navigate information critically, to protect themselves from manipulation, and to engage constructively. This means more than just media literacy, it means democracy. Thank you for joining us for this evening’s discussion on the importance of digital literacy. Third, inclusion must become the design principle, not an afterthought. If our engagement strategies only reach the digitally privileged, we are excluding huge parts of our population. And finally, we need to shift from engagement to empowerment. Encouraging is not enough. Citizens must see that their digital voices do shape outcomes. That their feedback isn’t just a checkbox, but a mandate. New models of participatory democracy, digital town halls, citizen assemblies, real-time policy polling, can build actually that bridge. The future of democracy will not be decided only in marble buildings nowadays. It will be shaped by the rules, by the coding, by the culture of our online lives as well. And we as parliamentarians must rise to that challenge. Because democracy should not only survive the digital age, but it must own it. Thank you very much.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: And then one more member of parliament, and then please everyone be prepared for the debate. Mrs. Esther Passaris, member of Pan-African Parliament and representing also Parliament of Kenya. Please.

Esther Passaris: Thank you, Madam Chair. I begin by recognizing my sister and colleague and president of the African Parliamentary Network of Internet Governance, APNIC, Ms. Neema Lugangira. For the work that she’s done, for telling the truth that many prefer to ignore, we didn’t come all this way just to be heard. We came so that we can be able to shape a digital future that doesn’t just work for the North, but works for everyone. What we have heard today is that AI is both a promise and a peril. It can empower, but it can also endanger, especially women in public life. The grotesque misuse of tools like grog to dehumanize female leaders is not only an attack on our dignity. It is also a direct assault to democracy. I say this not as a woman leader in Kenya. I also say it as our silence will not protect us. We must demand AI governance that protects not just data, but dignity, not just innovation, but inclusion. The Council of Europe Framework Convention, the AEU’s AI strategy, the IPU resolutions, these are all critical. But unless they are translated into national laws, enforced across borders, and backed by real support for capacity building in the global South, they remain but noble words. We must ensure that tech companies do not apply double standards, respecting the rights of EU while disregarding them in Africa. And we must build policy frameworks that defend both the users and the non-users, especially in societies where connectivity and illiteracy gaps still exist. So I echo the call, let’s synergize these global frameworks, build capacity for implementation, and never forget that a digital future without human dignity at its core is not a future at all. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you so much. I’m pretty sure that now we really have food for thoughts, and then you have your participants, you have your message to take up. So I now open the floor for everyone to just like raising your hands, and we try to get the figures, the numbers. And online, do we have the one? Okay. We have one still online, which is great. We have a Maltese MP who was supposed to be here, but we will have instead Marco Emanuele, who is like Parliamentary Assembly of Mediterranean Senior Research, online participating. Yes, we see you, and I hope we can also have your message to the plenary, and then please be prepared to raise your hands. We can have a debate for 20 minutes after.

Marco Emanuele: Thank you for this opportunity. It’s a great pleasure and honor to speak in this very important session for us, for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean. The Council of Europe is a very important international subject on the asset of AI. Very briefly, I want to underline that today’s topic of discussion highlights the importance of cooperation between parliaments to ensure that digital development promotes and guarantees human rights, safeguards, freedoms, and generates human, integral human development in the context of strengthening democratic… Let me underline that the Pact for the Future, launched by the United Nations in September 2024, identifies a series of specific actions under the heading Science, Technology and Innovation and Digital Cooperation. Three points in our opinion. First, at the national level, public-private partnerships for responsible technological innovation must be improved. I agree with the past intervention, which said that there is no competition between innovation and regulation. Second, the risk faces the age of technological revolution by our parliaments to creatively rethink national security strategies. Thirdly, we need to invest in digital literacy on a global scale. This is a very sensitive risk because it jeopardizes democratic resilience and this concerns the proliferation of hate speech, extremism and radicalization online, misinformation and disinformation, and cyber attacks on strategic, physical, and digital infrastructure. All phenomena that are increasingly AI-driven. To conclude, another point is the importance of the fact that the largest social media platforms, most recently Meta, have abolished the internal fact-checking of published content. For us, in PAM, we have an ongoing work on the asset of AI and emerging technology. In particular, we publish a daily and weekly digest, which brings together updates and analysis from think tanks and specialized websites. In terms of research, on November 2025, our think tank, Center for Global Studies, published a report entitled Malicious Use of AI and Emerging Technologies by Terrorists and Criminal Groups, Impact on Security, Legislation and Governance, which was presented to the United Nations Security Council. PAM is finalizing a report entitled Resilience of Democratic Systems in Relation to the Misuse of AI, ICT and Other Emerging Technologies, currently undergoing peer review by international experts. Thank you for your attention.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: The next one is number 396. Yes please, introduce yourself.

Audience: Thank you, thank you, can you hear me? My name is Wout de Natris-van der Borght. I’m the coordinator of a dynamic coalition of the IGF called Internet Standards, Security and Safety. I’d like to reflect on the first speaker and on Ms Neema, first the convention that you had to take into consideration the private sector and their demands and Ms Neema you said that they chuck everything overboard as soon as they start talking to the global south. I’m not advocating regulation here, we’re just throwing in a devil’s advocate. There’s not a car that goes on the road without regulation in place, there’s not a plane allowed in the air without regulation and oversight, there’s not an appliance that we use in our home that does not have a form of regulation. The internet is here for over 30 years and we still allow it to go on the digital road without brakes, without a safety net, whatever, without brake lights, anything. So where is the trade-off between our individual and societal safety and security and innovation? Because cars get innovated, planes get innovated, let alone appliances get innovated, the internet will get innovated also because people just do what they do and perhaps there’s a need by now for some rules that have to come into place. So what is the trade-off? That’s one, what do you take into consideration to get to a consensus and the other is how can we make sure that other countries in the world that do not have that form of legislation can get the same sort of guaranteed security that the west or the north or whatever we call it is able to get. So I’m just curious what your answer is. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: We take a round of the MPs here on the floor, but we can take it in the end if possible but then also do I see the more floor? I see one, yes, 065.

Audience: Thank you very much. I’m from Georgia, I represent the personal data protection service of Georgia and I’m also the member of the committee of artificial intelligence. Thank you very much for such interesting presentations and I’m really happy to be here and listen to different ideas and opinions regarding the AI and especially analyzing the perspective from the different principles regarding the democracy rule of law and last week we held, we hosted the event in Batumi, Georgia regarding the AI and it was called the spring conference and multiple different data protection authorities were attending. This event held the different topics but one of the most important one was related to the artificial intelligence. During one of my speeches I mentioned that two months ago there was a huge topic related to one of the artificial intelligence that were launched back in February 2025 and Professor Wojciech Wibierowski mentioned that event as a Sputnik event that underlined the significance between the speed and race, invisible race between the scientists, IT programmers and also the legislators and lawyers were trying to catch up with each other. So my question is related to the speed that we are currently, at which speed we are currently traveling, is this the speed that will catch up with the news and with the new possibilities and challenges related to the AI? As Sam Altman mentioned, the five years is a huge time to understand where we are going and what we are going to face at the end and as we currently are at the lowest level of the AI types, what we are going to do, when we are going to upgrade this level and maybe reach the general AI or super AI models? Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you so much. And then 136, please.

Audience: Thank you. Also, thank you very much for this interesting panel. I’m kind of reacting to this and posing a question regarding regulation and when you, I’m concerned in data protection and when you have new ventures, you spend more money on regulatory compliance than on the invention itself. So the effort to be compliant is increasing and the European Commission tried to be ahead of technology with the AI Act and I have doubts if this is really working. So, it creates a lot of bureaucracy, it creates a lot of load on the innovators. At the same time, since we don’t know what this technology is actually going to do, we see that it does not really address the important issues. So we are regulating something because we think it might have some effects, but we don’t know these effects and at the same time, we are not addressing the real risks and we can’t other than run behind technology. We can’t be before technology. It’s simply not possible. We will run regulation in a direction that we are thinking that technology is heading, but actually technology will do other things, will have other implications than we assume with regulation. So I think this approach has to be questioned whether we can really run in front of technology with regulation. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you and you forgot to introduce yourself.

Audience: My name is Jan Erbgut. I’m a member of the program committee. I’m a consultant on data protection and new technology. I’m affiliated with the University of Geneva.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you so much. So now I think we have a panel here ready to speak and if I also act as an MP, I also take part. From the very last one, I was very much talking as I was a member of the European Parliament and also a part of this regulation of AI Act and it was a common question that you were asking here also that if can you regulate something that has not been innovated yet and I said easily because it doesn’t regulate the technology, it only regulates the use cases. When there is this risk pyramid that when you are risking with AI democracy, when you are risking a human right, then there is a quite clear framework that what is allowed and what is not. Now we of course wait a commission to prepare also codes of contact which is like to clarify it more. So my question for some lobbyists and What are you trying to innovate if you cannot respect the democracy, or what are you trying to innovate if you cannot protect human rights? So these kind of high risks have been something that the European Union has been regulating along. It’s true that AI, and what the focus is as described here also for the Council framework, that what is the AI, what are you trying to regulate, is a side question always, that once it’s machine learning and when it’s AI. But you could get rid of that a little bit when you start thinking of the use cases. I don’t like the idea that new oil, because oil is not illimited as AI is, but I like to think of something like medicines. Would you like to call the pharmacy every time and say first you give your consent, then we don’t know yet because we want to support innovations. So we don’t give you security on the medicines that they are safe to use in our markets. So with this kind of frameworking, that is it safe to use for the human good, is the principle behind the AI act and regulation. And as I said in the beginning, I’ve been the legislator for 25 years, and quite often we go back to the same regulation to shape it better if it was not perfect the very first time we did the regulation. So that’s why you still have ministries of education, ministries of social affairs, ministries of science, because the regulation is moving and new laws come and the new one should be better than the old one. So this was very close to my work before, and this is the idea behind. If it’s perfect, let’s see. Is it too much bureaucracy for small? Yes. But then also when we are regulating something that has not been there yet, it’s still a good time to start earlier than later. This is one perspective of the idea behind, and it’s still coming. For example, my national parliament of Finland will have the ratification debate on AI act this Wednesday, so the government is proposing how to put it in the national law starting the work this week. So I go back to national and localize it, as was said here before. So, other topics you want to use and take the floor, we call the same order, so do you want to pick up one of the questions that was posed?

Zeynep Yıldız: Actually, not to pick one of them, but to give a general answer covering all of the questions indeed. Actually, as you mentioned, it’s about our priorities to decide what will be the prior step to reshape the future. Actually, people face with many other difficulties regarding irregulated technological developments throughout the human history. So, we are on the turning point to reshape regulatory bodies to build up a better future indeed. For instance, when we take GDPR as an example, now we are talking about privacy, protection of personal data as a principle of democracy and human rights, because privacy is one of the basic rights. But when it comes to the usage of data, usage of personal data, it should be regulated and the European Union regulated that and also we adapted our legal framework to that legal approach as well. So, if that hadn’t been in that way, that would be harder for people to figure out how their data is used. And also, when it comes to transparency case, when we look at the convention regarding artificial intelligence, we see that transparency is a core value for having a concrete approach in artificial intelligence. And still, the algorithms are not so transparent as it should be and this is still a problem for the lawmakers, I think, to be honest, because we need to first see what we are facing. Because in order to regulate something, you need first what’s going on and I think the engineers who are developing these technologies should be much more transparent with sharing the possible results because cyber security and other points are so important. So, we need to see what’s going on to have much more concrete sanctions. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you. And Neema?

Neema Lugangira: Thank you very much. I would like to really emphasize and echo what our colleague, one of the contributors, mentioned. The fact that in other sectors, we are okay of regulations. And, you know, the car example is a very, very good example. And I think all of us need to find ways to make sure we have similar with digital tools, emerging technology, such as AI, etc. Because without doing so, then we’re kind of being hypocritical in the sense because digital technology is trans-border, cross-border. So, how do we make sure that emerging technologies, such as AI, will be used in a safe and ethical way? And the excuse that having policy and legislation, you know, shrinks innovation is not true. But we need to ensure that we also capacitate parliamentarians to understand digital technology, to understand these tools, to understand emerging technology, to understand the benefits. You know, and there’s a new initiative from the GIZ called Female AI Leaders that is focusing on the African continent. It’s starting with five countries to try and see how can they capacitate women political leaders to be champions of AI. And this is GIZ in partnership with the women political leaders. And very recently, actually just on Saturday, we had a session in Tanzania with female parliamentarians. And we hope to do it regionally, East Africa, Southern, etc. Another key point that we haven’t touched on, but I think it’s important to touch on, and this is an area of great interest to Honorable Esther Passaris, is the issue of digital economy. There’s a lot of fraud that is being done through using, you know, digital tools and emerging technology. So we need to also have some sort of mandatory digital literacy on financial scams and things like that. Third one that I wanted to highlight is also, you know, the preying on child rights, you know, child exploitation and abductions and things like that. These days, people can use technology. It’s an adult person, but talking as if it’s a child. And it’s creating even problems for even Interpol to be able to track the perpetrators because they’re using voices such as children. How do you then prove that this person was an adult? So there’s a number of things. But all in all, I think to conclude is that having such conversations is important. But more so having these conversations at the beginning, you know, the design phase of a project, at the beginning of drafting policies, at the beginning of drafting legislations, having these learnings so that our colleagues from the European side, our colleagues from other developed nations can also try and accommodate concerns from our side. Because in terms of that power, you know, power ladder, we sit on a disadvantage point compared to our colleagues. So I think it’s important having these conversations together so that we can make sure we create an enabling environment. But still an environment that will ensure that there is, you know, AI for good. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you. And the final comment from Mario Hernandez Ramos, please.

Mario Hernandez Ramos: Thank you very much. For the first question, sorry I didn’t write down your name or affiliation, but thank you very much for the question because that question is not an easy one to respond. And of course, we’re not satisfied with you at all. Since we are not satisfied with the general outcome at all, like in general terms, we are very satisfied. But from several point of views, we’ll prefer to stress on other points. But as I told you, from different legal perspectives, we need to get into an agreement. The alternative of not having the private sector regulated like this was not having Fremont Convention. So the agreement was reached in the last minute of the last day of the last plenary session to be reached because of this question. So I’m very happy that you raised this question because we still think about it. But at least we have these minimal obligations. And these minimal obligations, I’m pretty sure, will be met. We should have opened the door for more ambitious national regulations. So if you read, for instance, the new executive order about artificial intelligence of the new administration, of the Trump administration, there’s not a lot of change from the Biden administration. So sometimes we need to go through and detail legal norms in order to understand better what is the reality of the regulation. But of course, it’s a true problem. But in order to understand also this agreement of the frame of convention, it’s very important to bear in mind that there are more instruments of legal regulation, like the European Union Regulation, and all of them, from my point of view, and I’m a constitutional law professor, they have a complementary relationship, very clearly. So it’s not, from my point of view, it’s not the right way in order to focus the regulation of artificial intelligence and not to try only one piece of regulation, but in all the landscape of the regulation. We need legally binding instruments, we need United Nations regulations, we need the Council of Euroregulations, we need European Union regulations, we need software regulations in the academia, in the industry, in every place. And all these kind of pieces of regulations, I think, construe a landscape which is a list and a start for regulating a technology that we don’t know how far can go in order to make risks to fundamental rights. I would like also to comment about this affirmation that there is no innovation in Europe, or we spend more money in the government systems. From my point of view, and studying the innovations in the public sector, at least in my country but other countries, there are innovations in Europe. There are a lot of innovations in artificial intelligence. Of course, if we compare to China, to the United States, we are a little bit, sorry, we are delayed, of course, but we are doing our best and we are trying to catch up. But, I mean, talking about regulation like it’s a bad, or governments of artificial intelligence like a bad thing, from my point of view, it’s a mistake. Regulation is the answer, the European answer to solve problems after the Second World War. And we all know how the European countries solve the problems, among others, before the Second World War. So, this way of solving problems through law, through dialogue, through legal standards coming out of a democratic process, I think is a positive answer, and a positive stand that we need to recognize in a positive way. And then we can invest more money, of course, and then we can innovate, of course, but we shouldn’t undermine the initiative, the European initiative to regulate this artificial intelligence technology. And in that way, I would like also to stress the methodology that the Committee of Artificial Intelligence is developing, is approved also by the Committee of Ministers, it is human rights, democracy, and rule of law impact assessment, HUDERIA, which is to avoid running after the technology, it’s like a crystal ball, like Vadim used to call it, to foresee exactly what are the problems that did artificial intelligence systems will arise to fundamental rights, democracy, and rule of law. So from my perspective, from a constitutional lawyer, I think the European perspective is the right one. Another thing is money and investment, but we need to regulate a technology that significantly poses risk to our human values. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you. This goes fine, because you are a lawyer and I’m the engineer. So I may now wrap up in minus 10 minutes, because we are a little bit late, as we started late as well. So what next? And shared spirit, it’s not the most easy minute to wrap up, but I will do it using the speeches by not MPs, because we work together and we will continue, but kind of what we heard from the participants. So what role for the parliamentarians, it is the state budgets, do we invest on the research together, universities, school, basic education, do the resources of the teachers include media literacy, AI literacy, or in Finland they call it multiliteracy, do we create a good atmosphere for the society with the freedom of press and others to support democracy? And on top you can build a more resilient AI and digital society as well. But then also, rather putting one against each other, regulation or innovation, I think all that budgets and surrounding is also bringing innovations. So if we do a cooperation, I would say the number one cooperation, so that cooperation across borders, parties, societies, sectors, we have mentioned here companies, academia, civil society and politicians, we can shape common standards when we do it internationally, that is also pro-innovation, it’s a pro-market way to do standards that can be copied and taken from one other country to another and not to separate 46 times or 50 times or 200 times. So there I see also the role for the UN digital compact that gave the pace for the whole globe, almost all the countries, that can be taken forward and then the regional cooperation is more quick and practical to do that. Second, I would say the accountability, so that the technology serves democracy and not the other way around. And then this framework convention that has been represented here is also open for other countries than only the Council of European Countries and we heard the list was quite covering globally and can be then continued and serve as a basis. So then inclusion, I think it’s very important that this is not a moment in the history to take backwards on the human rights or take backwards the inclusiveness of women in society as mentioned here many times and then also locally, so not the rural region is something left behind because of the connectivity missing or the resources missing there, so we can have the many dimensions for the gaps. Is it the locally that you cannot reach or because you come from another continent? So this is really the moment again that you think globally but have to act locally. So that where I see that governance that is for everyone and benefits are shared as well and not as a pyramid, everything goes to the one or two companies or regions, this is very important. Maybe I finish with the just very concrete idea from my own parliament and from Finland. The business of Finland has gathered now several years a state of AI and we’ll copy that to the parliament. We will have twice a year state of AI where we will look the possible flaws that has occurred in our own country so the people recognize those and we also see the state of AI, how many companies, how well new established AI companies, what is the progress taking on the knowledge and other place. So this is really I think one concrete possibility for the parliaments and the societies to look where are we and take it as a regular part of our development for the future. My pleasure to thank you all for the great number of participation here in this our plenary hall. I’m very happy that you will visit this heart and core of European democracy, really underlying and linking the human rights, rule of law and democracy together with the Internet development. Thank you for participation and have a good week in Juridic.

Agreement points

Need for AI regulation based on human rights and democratic principles

Speakers

– Mario Hernandez Ramos
– Miapetra Kumpula-Natri
– Zeynep Yıldız
– Neema Lugangira
– Esther Passaris

Arguments

AI systems pose risks to fundamental rights, democracy, and rule of law requiring regulation

Innovation should not come at the expense of human rights and democracy

Global legal frameworks are essential for enforcement power and coordinated standards

Developing countries need support to create robust national AI policies and legislation

A digital future without human dignity at its core is not acceptable

Summary

All speakers agree that AI regulation is necessary and must be grounded in human rights, democracy, and rule of law principles, with particular emphasis on protecting human dignity and democratic values

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Importance of international cooperation and parliamentary collaboration

Speakers

– Mario Hernandez Ramos
– Zeynep Yıldız
– Neema Lugangira
– Miapetra Kumpula-Natri

Arguments

National parliamentarians play a key role in ratifying international conventions

Parliamentarians are shapers of change who turn principles into laws and ensure democratic accountability

Cross-border parliamentary cooperation is essential for addressing transnational digital challenges

Multiple complementary regulatory instruments are needed at different levels – UN, Council of Europe, EU, national

Summary

Speakers unanimously emphasize the critical role of parliamentarians in international cooperation and the need for multi-level governance approaches to address AI’s transnational nature

Topics

Legal and regulatory

AI-enabled gender-based violence threatens women’s political participation

Speakers

– Neema Lugangira
– Esther Passaris

Arguments

AI tools like Grok enable technology-facilitated gender-based violence against women leaders

Such attacks could discourage women from participating in politics and democratic processes

Grotesque misuse of AI to dehumanize female leaders is a direct assault on democracy

Summary

Both African parliamentarians strongly condemn AI-enabled gender-based violence as a serious threat to women’s political participation and democratic representation

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Need for transparency in AI systems and algorithmic accountability

Speakers

– Zeynep Yıldız
– Maria-Nefeli Vasileiou Chatziioannidou

Arguments

Transparency is a core value for concrete approaches to artificial intelligence

Algorithms are not transparent enough, creating problems for lawmakers

Platforms should not operate with opaque algorithms based solely on profit motives

Digital spaces should be reclaimed as democratic spaces with transparent governance and accountability

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the critical need for algorithmic transparency and accountability, particularly in how platforms operate and how lawmakers can effectively regulate AI systems

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Transparency and Accountability in AI Systems

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers reject the false dichotomy between regulation and innovation, arguing that effective regulation can coexist with and even support innovation when properly designed

Speakers

– Marijana Puljak
– Miapetra Kumpula-Natri

Arguments

Europe can and must both regulate and innovate – this is not a false choice

Regulation should focus on use cases rather than technology itself, similar to how medicines are regulated for safety

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Balancing Innovation and Regulation

Both African parliamentarians highlight the disparity in how tech companies operate between developed and developing countries, calling for more equitable global standards and support for capacity building

Speakers

– Neema Lugangira
– Esther Passaris

Arguments

Tech companies apply different standards between developed and developing countries

Developing countries need support to create robust national AI policies and legislation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Global South Perspectives and Digital Divide

Both speakers see the potential of digital tools to enhance democratic participation but emphasize the need for meaningful engagement that produces real outcomes rather than superficial participation

Speakers

– Maria-Nefeli Vasileiou Chatziioannidou
– Neema Lugangira

Arguments

Digital tools can strengthen participatory democracy by reaching wider audiences cost-effectively

Citizens must see their digital voices shape real outcomes, not just serve as checkboxes

Topics

Sociocultural | Digital Democracy and Civic Engagement

Unexpected consensus

Regulation as a positive force rather than innovation barrier

Speakers

– Mario Hernandez Ramos
– Marijana Puljak
– Miapetra Kumpula-Natri

Arguments

Regulation is the European answer to solving problems through democratic processes

Europe can and must both regulate and innovate – this is not a false choice

Regulation should focus on use cases rather than technology itself, similar to how medicines are regulated for safety

Explanation

Despite common industry criticism of regulation stifling innovation, these speakers from different backgrounds (legal expert, IT engineer, and experienced legislator) all defend regulation as compatible with and supportive of innovation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Balancing Innovation and Regulation

Global South and European parliamentarians aligned on human rights priorities

Speakers

– Neema Lugangira
– Esther Passaris
– Zeynep Yıldız
– Maria-Nefeli Vasileiou Chatziioannidou

Arguments

A digital future without human dignity at its core is not acceptable

Parliamentarians are shapers of change who turn principles into laws and ensure democratic accountability

Citizens must see their digital voices shape real outcomes, not just serve as checkboxes

Cross-border parliamentary cooperation is essential for addressing transnational digital challenges

Explanation

Despite different regional contexts and development levels, parliamentarians from Africa, Turkey, and Greece show remarkable alignment on prioritizing human dignity and meaningful democratic participation in AI governance

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion reveals strong consensus on fundamental principles: AI regulation is necessary and must be grounded in human rights and democratic values; international parliamentary cooperation is essential; transparency and accountability in AI systems are critical; and innovation and regulation can coexist. There is particular alignment on protecting vulnerable groups, especially women in politics, from AI-enabled harm.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles with constructive debate on implementation approaches. The agreement spans different regions, professional backgrounds, and political contexts, suggesting robust foundation for collaborative action on AI governance. The consensus is particularly significant given the diverse representation from European, African, and Mediterranean parliamentary networks.

Different viewpoints

Timing and approach to AI regulation – proactive vs reactive

Speakers

– Mario Hernandez Ramos
– Jan Erbgut (Audience)

Arguments

Multiple complementary regulatory instruments are needed at different levels – UN, Council of Europe, EU, national

Regulatory compliance costs can exceed innovation investment, creating bureaucratic burden

Summary

Hernandez Ramos advocates for comprehensive proactive regulation across multiple levels, while the audience member argues that trying to regulate unknown future technologies creates excessive bureaucracy and may not address real risks effectively.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Effectiveness of current regulatory frameworks

Speakers

– Miapetra Kumpula-Natri
– Jan Erbgut (Audience)

Arguments

Regulation should focus on use cases rather than technology itself, similar to how medicines are regulated for safety

Regulatory compliance costs can exceed innovation investment, creating bureaucratic burden

Summary

Kumpula-Natri defends the use-case focused approach of AI regulation as effective and necessary, while the audience member questions whether current regulatory approaches can effectively address unknown technological developments and argues they create excessive compliance burdens.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Unexpected differences

Scope of private sector regulation in international frameworks

Speakers

– Mario Hernandez Ramos
– Neema Lugangira

Arguments

Multiple complementary regulatory instruments are needed at different levels – UN, Council of Europe, EU, national

Tech companies apply different standards between developed and developing countries

Explanation

While both support international AI governance, Hernandez Ramos defends the Framework Convention’s minimal private sector obligations as a necessary compromise for achieving agreement, while Lugangira criticizes the double standards this approach enables, where companies follow strict rules in developed countries but abandon them in developing nations.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most speakers sharing common goals around human rights protection, democratic governance, and the need for AI regulation. The main tensions centered on implementation approaches and the balance between regulatory burden and effectiveness.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most conflicts were about means rather than ends, with speakers generally aligned on protecting human rights and democracy while differing on regulatory timing, scope, and implementation strategies. This suggests good potential for collaborative solutions despite tactical differences.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers reject the false dichotomy between regulation and innovation, arguing that effective regulation can coexist with and even support innovation when properly designed

Speakers

– Marijana Puljak
– Miapetra Kumpula-Natri

Arguments

Europe can and must both regulate and innovate – this is not a false choice

Regulation should focus on use cases rather than technology itself, similar to how medicines are regulated for safety

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Balancing Innovation and Regulation

Both African parliamentarians highlight the disparity in how tech companies operate between developed and developing countries, calling for more equitable global standards and support for capacity building

Speakers

– Neema Lugangira
– Esther Passaris

Arguments

Tech companies apply different standards between developed and developing countries

Developing countries need support to create robust national AI policies and legislation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Global South Perspectives and Digital Divide

Both speakers see the potential of digital tools to enhance democratic participation but emphasize the need for meaningful engagement that produces real outcomes rather than superficial participation

Speakers

– Maria-Nefeli Vasileiou Chatziioannidou
– Neema Lugangira

Arguments

Digital tools can strengthen participatory democracy by reaching wider audiences cost-effectively

Citizens must see their digital voices shape real outcomes, not just serve as checkboxes

Topics

Sociocultural | Digital Democracy and Civic Engagement

Key takeaways

The Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI represents the first international legally binding treaty regulating AI based on human rights, democracy, and rule of law principles

AI regulation should focus on use cases and risks rather than the technology itself, particularly when democracy and human rights are at stake

There is no false choice between regulation and innovation – both can and must coexist through proper frameworks and support mechanisms

Digital technologies pose both opportunities and threats to democracy, requiring proactive governance to ensure they serve people rather than replace or undermine them

Global cooperation is essential as AI and digital technologies are cross-border issues that require coordinated international standards

AI-enabled gender-based violence against women leaders represents a direct threat to democratic participation and must be addressed

Digital literacy and civic resilience are crucial for empowering citizens to navigate the digital age critically and constructively

The digital divide between Global North and South creates unequal protection standards that must be addressed through capacity building and inclusive frameworks

Resolutions and action items

National parliaments need to ratify the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI (at least 5 ratifications required for enforcement)

Parliamentarians should implement regular ‘State of AI’ assessments in their countries to monitor progress and identify issues

Develop visual interactive tools to help small startups and public institutions navigate AI regulation compliance

Build partnerships between parliamentary networks like the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly and African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance

Invest in digital literacy programs on a global scale, including mandatory education on financial scams and child protection

Capacitate parliamentarians to understand digital technology and emerging technologies through initiatives like the Female AI Leaders program

Create robust national AI policies and legislation in developing countries with support from international frameworks

Unresolved issues

How to ensure tech companies apply consistent ethical standards globally rather than different standards between developed and developing countries

The challenge of regulating AI at the pace of technological development – whether current regulatory approaches can keep up with rapid innovation

How to balance regulatory compliance costs with innovation capacity, particularly for small startups and developing countries

The scope of private sector regulation under international frameworks remains minimal and varies by country

How to effectively combat AI-enabled gender-based violence and deepfake technology misuse

Addressing the transparency gap in AI algorithms and ensuring meaningful accountability

Bridging the digital divide to ensure inclusive democratic participation across rural/urban and Global North/South divides

Suggested compromises

The Framework Convention adopted minimal obligations for the private sector while allowing states to increase requirements nationally

General principles were prioritized over detailed regulation to enable agreement among diverse countries with different legal and cultural backgrounds

National security was excluded from the Convention scope while maintaining that such actions must still respect human rights, democracy, and rule of law

Multiple complementary regulatory instruments at different levels (UN, Council of Europe, EU, national) rather than relying on a single comprehensive framework

Focus on human rights impact assessment (HUDERIA) methodology to anticipate AI risks rather than reactive regulation

Combination of international standards with local implementation and adaptation to national contexts

We think that artificial intelligence is like maths, mathematics. Maths are natural, maths are objective, but this is wrong. Artificial intelligence is not natural, is not objective, not at all. There are interests of the designers, they are biased. Not only the design, also on the data set.

Speaker

Mario Hernandez Ramos

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges a common misconception about AI neutrality. It’s insightful because it exposes the human element embedded in AI systems – the biases, interests, and subjective decisions that shape these technologies. This perspective is crucial for understanding why regulation is necessary.

Impact

This comment established the philosophical foundation for the entire discussion about AI regulation. It shifted the conversation from technical considerations to human rights and democratic values, providing the intellectual framework that other speakers built upon throughout the session.

Very recently, we have seen… there is the AI known as Grok on the Twitter X. And this Grok, a person can take a picture of a female leader and post it on the Twitter X… and tell Grok, I want you to undress, make her wear a bikini. And the Grok would do it… Young women are not going to want to put themselves through that. More women are not going to want to put themselves through that.

Speaker

Neema Lugangira

Reason

This comment is profoundly thought-provoking because it illustrates a concrete, immediate threat to democratic participation. It connects abstract AI governance discussions to real-world consequences for women’s political participation, showing how technology can actively undermine democratic inclusion.

Impact

This comment dramatically shifted the discussion from theoretical frameworks to urgent, tangible threats. It introduced a gender dimension that hadn’t been explicitly addressed and demonstrated how AI misuse could roll back decades of progress in women’s political participation. It prompted Esther Passaris to echo these concerns and elevated the urgency of the regulatory discussion.

There’s not a car that goes on the road without regulation in place, there’s not a plane allowed in the air without regulation and oversight, there’s not an appliance that we use in our home that does not have a form of regulation. The internet is here for over 30 years and we still allow it to go on the digital road without brakes, without a safety net.

Speaker

Wout de Natris-van der Borght

Reason

This analogy is particularly insightful because it reframes the regulation debate by comparing digital technologies to other regulated industries. It challenges the notion that digital innovation should be exempt from safety standards that we routinely accept in other sectors.

Impact

This comment provided a powerful counter-narrative to the ‘regulation stifles innovation’ argument. It prompted defensive responses from some participants while being endorsed by others, creating a productive tension that deepened the discussion about the balance between innovation and safety.

Our first democracy was always being part digital. Our first political debates happened in political forums… Our civic identities didn’t only transform through school and public institutions, but by the messy, often thrilling, but often toxic environment of the internet… We are more connected than ever, but democratic participation feels more fragile, more fragmented, and sometimes futile.

Speaker

Maria-Nefeli Vasileiou Chatziioannidou

Reason

This comment provides a unique generational perspective on digital democracy. It’s insightful because it comes from someone who experienced democratic participation as inherently digital, offering a different lens on the challenges and opportunities of digital governance.

Impact

This comment introduced a generational dimension to the discussion and highlighted the paradox of digital connectivity versus democratic engagement. It shifted focus from regulatory frameworks to the lived experience of digital democracy, influencing subsequent discussions about digital resilience and empowerment.

Tech companies will operate in a certain way, adhering to the EU AI Act. But the very same companies, if they operate in the African continent, where we do not have similar act in place, all of those regulations and good behavior is thrown out of the window.

Speaker

Neema Lugangira

Reason

This observation exposes a critical gap in global AI governance – the double standards applied by tech companies based on regulatory environments. It highlights how regulatory frameworks can create global inequities rather than universal protections.

Impact

This comment introduced a crucial global justice dimension to the discussion, challenging the assumption that regional regulations like the EU AI Act provide universal benefits. It prompted discussions about minimum global standards and influenced the conversation about international cooperation in AI governance.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond technical and legal frameworks to address the human, democratic, and social implications of AI governance. Hernandez Ramos’s comment about AI bias established the philosophical foundation, while Lugangira’s examples of gender-based AI abuse and global regulatory disparities brought urgent, concrete dimensions to the debate. The car regulation analogy provided a compelling framework for understanding why digital regulation is necessary, while the generational perspective highlighted the lived reality of digital democracy. Together, these comments created a multi-dimensional conversation that balanced theoretical frameworks with practical concerns, regional perspectives with global implications, and technical considerations with human rights. They elevated the discussion from a policy debate to a broader examination of how AI governance affects democratic participation, social justice, and human dignity across different contexts and communities.

How can we help small start-ups and public institutions navigate the complex web of AI regulation, including the new framework?

Speaker

Marijana Puljak

Explanation

This addresses the practical challenge of implementing AI regulation without excluding smaller entities that may lack resources for compliance

What is the trade-off between our individual and societal safety and security and innovation?

Speaker

Wout de Natris-van der Borght

Explanation

This fundamental question explores how to balance necessary regulation with technological advancement, using analogies to other regulated industries

How can we make sure that other countries in the world that do not have that form of legislation can get the same sort of guaranteed security that the west or the north is able to get?

Speaker

Wout de Natris-van der Borght

Explanation

This addresses the global digital divide and the need for equitable AI governance across different regions and development levels

Is the current speed at which we are traveling sufficient to catch up with the new possibilities and challenges related to AI?

Speaker

Georgian representative from personal data protection service

Explanation

This concerns the pace of regulatory development versus the rapid advancement of AI technology, particularly as we move toward more advanced AI models

What are we going to do when we upgrade from current AI levels to general AI or super AI models?

Speaker

Georgian representative from personal data protection service

Explanation

This addresses the need to prepare for more advanced AI systems that may pose different or greater challenges than current technology

How can we domesticate all the different international AI frameworks at national level?

Speaker

Neema Lugangira

Explanation

This addresses the practical challenge of implementing multiple international AI agreements and conventions into coherent national legislation

How can we support developing countries to create robust national AI policies and legislation?

Speaker

Neema Lugangira

Explanation

This focuses on capacity building and technical assistance needed for Global South countries to develop effective AI governance

How can we include within EU Act and other acts a minimum level of acceptable global behavior for companies, irrespective of where they operate?

Speaker

Neema Lugangira

Explanation

This addresses the double standards where tech companies follow strict regulations in developed countries but ignore them in developing nations

How do we address technology-facilitated gender-based violence, particularly AI tools like Grok being used to create inappropriate images of female leaders?

Speaker

Neema Lugangira and Esther Passaris

Explanation

This addresses a specific and urgent threat to women’s participation in democracy through AI-enabled harassment and manipulation

How can we ensure tech companies do not apply double standards, respecting rights in the EU while disregarding them in Africa?

Speaker

Esther Passaris

Explanation

This highlights the need for consistent global standards and enforcement mechanisms across different jurisdictions

How can we make algorithms more transparent for lawmakers to understand what they are regulating?

Speaker

Zeynep Yıldız

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of regulating systems that are not fully transparent or understandable to regulators