Nov 5 (Reuters) - The parents of a girl in the US who used Google’s Gemini AI chatbot on her school-provided Chromebook to make a plan to die by suicide have sued the company, claiming it pushed its AI products on students and failed to warn of their dangers.

• The girl, identified as “Emma,” began using Gemini on her Chromebook when she was 13

• Emma discussed different methods of suicide with Gemini and planned a funeral for herself while the bot helped her conceal her feelings from her family, the lawsuit claims

• Parents say they were alerted after school software flagged a document Emm

Qun Wan was in the middle of a heated call with his daughter, Bowen Wan, when the phone suddenly went silent.

The conversation, in early February, had started like most of their regular check-ins, a ritual that had kept them connected after Bowen moved from their small village in China to the United States. But the mood soured when she admitted she had been cutting back on a seizure medication that kept her severe epilepsy under control. She told him she had been slicing her tablets into pieces with a pill cutter, allowing her to reduce her dose by one-fourth, Qun recalled.

Listen to your do

When Hugo Parra was arrested last year on felony charges, his pleas of innocence fell on deaf ears.

San Diego police had a description of the Alfa Romeo car he was riding in and a witness who identified him during a curbside lineup as the man who brandished a handgun in Golden Hill. They had also checked the city’s automatic license plate camera system, run by the private company Flock, and got a “hit,” substantiating the claim.

The problem, says attorney Alex Coolman, was that Parra was five miles away from Golden Hill at the time of the crime, and the so-called hit from the license plate r

Relevant

RULINGS CLASSIFIED AS RELEVANT BY THE OFFICE OF THE LEGAL RELIEF REPORTER AND THE FULL COURT, FOR POSSIBLE PUBLICATION

WEEK OF MARCH 9-13

CIVIL, AGRARIAN, AND RURAL CASSATION CHAMBER

RULING NUMBER: STC19743-2025

RULING DATE: 12/03/2025

RECEIPT DATE: 12/19/2025

JUSTICE: HILDA GONZÁLEZ NEIRA

CASES FACTUAL FACTS

The plaintiff, Diana Katerine Lobo Sánchez, stated that, in a judgment issued by the Seventh Civil Court of the Cartagena Circuit, in the civil liability proceedings brought against her by Jesús María Villalobos Barrios and Irina Janeth Villalobos Sánchez, the court upheld the claims of the lawsuit and ordered her to pay compensation equivalent to forty (40) current monthly minimum wages to each of the plaintiffs, based on the damage caused by the publications she made about her private life, which—according to the plaintiffs—affected their psychological, emotional, and reputational well-being.

She indicated that she filed an appeal against this decision, arguing, among other things, that: i) while she acknowledged authorship of some publications, these constituted reactions to prior provocations by the plaintiffs, and therefore her admission could not be fragmented without considering the underlying cause; and ii) the compensation amount was disproportionate, since the content of the publications did not allow for the inference of direct attacks or denigrating expressions against the family or their minor daughters. However, the judgment was upheld by the Superior Court of Cartagena in a ruling dated May 26, 2025.

SUBJECT

• No procedural irregularity existed in the judgment issued in the extra-contractual civil liability proceedings by the Superior Court of Cartagena, which upheld the plaintiff's liability for publishing intimate and sensitive information about the plaintiff's family on social media, by dismissing the arguments of prior provocation, reciprocal use of social media, and veracity of the information disclosed.

• No procedural irregularity existed in the judgment of the Superior Court of Cartagena that upheld the plaintiff's liability for publishing intimate and sensitive information about the plaintiff's family on social media, since the classification of said conduct as violence against women was duly reasoned and supported by jurisprudential precedents.

CRIMINAL CASSATION CHAMBER

RULING NUMBER: STP15565-2025

DATE OF RULING: 02/09/2025

DATE RECEIVED: 19/01/2026

JUDGE: JOSÉ JOAQUÍN URBANO MARTÍNEZ

FACTUAL BASIS

Diana Marcela Llano Sarmiento filed a tutela action alleging violations of her fundamental rights to work and due process in connection with the filling of two vacancies for the position of Social Worker, Grade 18, in the Sentencing and Security Measures Courts of Bogotá. He stated that he participated in and passed the merit-based selection process convened by the Bogotá Sectional Council of the Judiciary, ranking second on the list of eligible candidates for the position.

He indicated that the Judicial Career Unit sent the list of eligible candidates to the Administrative Services Center, along with the favorable transfer recommendation for Néstor Eliecer Moreno Rangel, who held the same position at another courthouse. Subsequently, the Coordinating Judge of the Administrative Services Center, through Resolution No. 167 of June 5, 2025, filled the two vacancies with Moreno Rangel and Emperatriz Uribe Flórez, who had ranked first in the competition. This decision was upheld on appeal through Resolution No. 192 of June 26, 2025.

The plaintiff argued that this decision disregarded the judicial career system, considering that the list of eligible candidates should take precedence over the transfer request and that, consequently, she lost the opportunity to access the position before the list expired. Furthermore, she alleged irreparable harm and asserted, without providing additional evidence, that the appointment was discriminatory on the grounds of gender.

In a ruling dated July 24, 2025, the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Bogotá denied the petition for protection of constitutional rights, concluding that the petitioner had recourse to an action for annulment and restoration of rights before the administrative court, that irreparable harm had not been demonstrated, and that the administrative decision complied with the principle of merit. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner appealed.

TOPIC

• Non-requirement to substantiate the appeal of the judgment by virtue of the principle of informality of the tutela action

• Inadmissibility of the tutela action to challenge administrative acts of filling public positions through merit-based competitions, given the existence of another judicial defense mechanism before the Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction

• Characteristics that demonstrate the protective approach of precautionary measures in the administrative litigation process

• Opportunity to order ordinary and urgent precautionary measures in the administrative litigation process

• Jurisprudential sub-rules for the admissibility of the tutela action against administrative acts issued in merit-based competitions

• Inadmissibility of the tutela action to challenge Resolution No. 167 of 2025, by which the Coordinating Judge of the Administrative Services Center of the Courts of Execution of Sentences and Measures of Bogotá Security filled the position of Social Worker, Grade 18, with the employee who had a favorable transfer recommendation, and not with the person on the eligibility list, given the existence of another legal recourse before the Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction.

• Jurisprudential sub-rules for filling a position when there is overlap between a transfer and an eligibility list for the same vacancy.

• Coexistence between the rights of those on the eligibility list and those of career employees requesting transfers in the filling of positions.

• The resolution by which the Coordinating Judge of the Administrative Services Center of the Bogotá Criminal Courts appointed the employee with a favorable transfer recommendation to the position of Social Worker, Grade 18, for which there was also an eligibility list, respects the principle of merit and does not violate the plaintiff's right to due administrative process, as the resumes and profiles of the applicants were objectively compared.

NUMBER OF RULING: STP21973-2025

RULING DATE: 02/12/2025

RECEIPT DATE: 11/02/2026

JUDGE: JOSÉ JOAQUÍN URBANO MARTÍNEZ

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On January 24, 2023, the Prosecutor's Office charged Osbert Orozco Pérez before the 9th Municipal Criminal Court of Cali with the crimes of aggravated sexual acts with a minor under fourteen years of age and aggravated sexual assault of a minor under fourteen years of age. He was placed under house arrest.

The Prosecutor's Office filed the indictment on April 4, 2023. The indictment hearing was held on September 27, 2023, before the 7th Criminal Court of the Cali Circuit. The preliminary hearing took place between April and June 2024, and the oral trial began on September 6, 2024. Closing arguments and the verdict were scheduled for September 19, 2025.

On that date, the defense recused the judge based on ground 4 of Article 56 of Law 906 of 2004, alleging that a file containing a conviction against him, with evidentiary analysis, conclusions, and the judge's signature, appeared in the digital case file, which would demonstrate bias.

On October 1, 2025, the judge declared the recusal motion unfounded, and on October 7, the 8th Criminal Court of the Circuit rejected it.

In response, Orozco Pérez filed a writ of amparo (a constitutional remedy) against the 7th and 8th Criminal Courts of the Circuit of Cali for alleged violation of his rights to due process and defense, requesting that these decisions be overturned, that a new ruling favorable to his interests be issued, and that the criminal proceedings be provisionally suspended.

TOPIC

• Legal framework and soft law instruments on the right to the presumption of innocence

• Content, dimensions, and scope of the right to the presumption of innocence

• Relationship between the right to due process and the principle of judicial impartiality

• Scope of the objective and subjective dimensions of the principle of judicial impartiality, according to the European Court of Human Rights

• Legal framework and soft law instruments of the right to judicial impartiality

• Concept and scope of the guiding principle of impartiality in the accusatory criminal justice system

• Guiding criteria for the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the judicial field, as set forth in Constitutional Court Ruling T-323 of 2024, within the framework of the use of information and communication technologies in the service of justice

• Binding nature of Agreement PCSJA24-12243 of 2024 of the Superior Council of the Judiciary on the guidelines for the respectful, responsible, safe, and ethical use and application of AI, within the framework of the use of information and communication technologies in the service of justice

• The requirement for continued uncertainty until the final judgment, as opposed to the drafting of a guilty verdict, as a guarantee of the principle of presumption of innocence.

• The drafting and filing of a guilty verdict, known to the defendant and the defense, before the final arguments are concluded, even if incidentally, constitutes a premature determination of guilt and disregards the principle of presumption of innocence.

• Prior knowledge of the outcome of the proceedings leads to the loss of the decision-making function, transforming it into a mere ritual, lacking real effectiveness in determining criminal responsibility, by virtue of the guiding principle of presumption of innocence in the adversarial criminal justice system.

• Violation of the right to due process due to disregard for the principle of impartiality, attributable to the 7th Criminal Court of the Cali Circuit, by drafting and sharing with the defense and the defendant a guilty verdict containing... - Evaluative bias, demonstrating prejudgment and a preconceived notion of the decision, incompatible with the requirement of the judge's absence of personal prejudice.

• Violation of the right to due process by the decisions of the Seventh and Eighth Criminal Courts of the Cali Circuit, which declared unfounded the recusal motion filed by the plaintiff against the Seventh Judge, by failing to recognize that the inclusion in the case file of a draft conviction and its disclosure to the accused and their defense directly compromises judicial impartiality and the presumption of innocence of the accused.

• Prohibition of the use of artificial intelligence systems to replace the evaluation of evidence or judicial decision-making, within the framework of the use of information and communication technologies in the service of justice in the exercise of the jurisdictional function of the Judicial Branch.

• Duty of judicial officers to use artificial intelligence systems in a reasoned and balanced manner, oriented towards the protection of fundamental rights and subject to best practices, ethical criteria, and respect for the Higher mandates within the framework of the use of information and communication technologies in the service of justice

• Possibility of using artificial intelligence in the tasks inherent to the administration of justice, provided that it does not replace non-delegable jurisdictional functions, especially those that require human reasoning for the interpretation of facts, the evaluation of evidence, and the justification and adoption of judicial decisions, within the framework of the use of information and communication technologies in the service of justice

DR. ANA MARÍA PRIETO SANDOVAL

OFFICE OF THE LEGAL RELIEF COURT AND PLENARY SESSION

SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE

Bogotá, Colombia

March 13, 2026

Three foreign nationals were arrested and charged with using AI to allegedly impersonate corporate CEOs and attorneys to steal over $100m, according to an indictment that was newly unsealed by the US Department of Justice.

According to a press release from the United States attorney’s office for the southern district of New York, three men – Jacob Soall, Sharon Hazan, and Guy Sheetrit – were arrested for using AI to alter and impersonate the voices and images of