{
  "id": "AIBD-0334",
  "title": "Colombia's Constitutional Court presents PretorIA (July 2020), an AI system to classify and search tutela rulings for selection; still in user testing in April 2021, no outcome metrics published",
  "summary": "PretorIA, presented by the Corte Constitucional on 27 July 2020 to support tutela selection (620,242 tutelas in 2019), was in user-testing in Apr 2021 (Dejusticia); no quantified outcome found.",
  "date_observed": "2020-07-27",
  "date_basis": "unassessed",
  "date_precision": "unassessed",
  "benefit_status": null,
  "source_collection": null,
  "source_entry": null,
  "account": "On 27 July 2020 Colombia's Corte Constitucional presented PretorIA at a virtual press conference organized by Corferias, according to Ámbito Jurídico. It is an artificial-intelligence system meant to support the selection of tutela (constitutional protection) rulings for review. The court receives about 620,242 tutela files a year (more than 2,500 rulings a day). PretorIA was to group, analyze and classify them by criteria the court prioritizes, offering search, categorization (initially for health rulings) and statistics. Developers claimed it could process rulings in under two minutes where a person needs at least a day to read 30 files. Semana (3 July 2020) reported that the program was developed by the court with the Universidad de Buenos Aires and the Universidad del Rosario. Alongside, the court unanimously decided to stop receiving paper files and to accept electronic filing from 30 July 2020. In January 2020 the court's president Gloria Ortiz had described the forthcoming tool to El Tiempo as Prometea, the Argentine system it derives from. Dejusticia's independent research (19 April 2021, with Derechos Digitales) found PretorIA still in a testing phase with court staff. It performed four functions (classification of lower-court rulings, search, non-narrative summaries and statistics), supported by a four-person in-house AI and data team. The Universidad de los Andes algorithm registry records a 2018 pilot and 2020 deployment without quantified metrics. No court statement of a verified outcome was reachable (the court's PretorIA page renders no text).",
  "category": "general benefit",
  "unexpected": false,
  "purpose": "Support, without replacing, the selection of tutela rulings for Constitutional Court review by classifying, searching and summarizing incoming rulings. The claimed benefit is faster, better-informed selection.",
  "system": "PretorIA (Corte Constitucional tutela classification and search system, derived from Argentina's Prometea)",
  "model_version": null,
  "developer": "Corte Constitucional de Colombia with the Universidad de Buenos Aires (IALAB, Juan Corvalán) and the Universidad del Rosario",
  "deployer": "Corte Constitucional de Colombia",
  "location": "Bogotá, Colombia",
  "domain": "Justice administration: constitutional review case selection",
  "segment": "Constitutional court case management",
  "benefit_type": "Improved Organizational Efficiency",
  "taxonomy_note": "The intended good is faster triage of tutela files, and no measured outcome exists because the system was still in testing.",
  "registry_ids": {},
  "ratings": [
    {
      "group": "personal",
      "depth": null,
      "reason": "No litigant outcome is documented."
    },
    {
      "group": "organizational",
      "depth": null,
      "reason": "General benefit. The processing-time claim is a developer statement at launch and the system was in testing in April 2021."
    },
    {
      "group": "societal",
      "depth": null,
      "reason": "General benefit. No effect on tutela selection quality or timeliness is documented."
    }
  ],
  "ai_role": {
    "status": "assessed",
    "statement": "PretorIA classifies and indexes lower-court tutela rulings for the court's selection staff. Selection remains a human decision (“amplía las capacidades de conocimiento del juez, sin reemplazarlo”, per Ámbito Jurídico). The only descriptions read are news reports of the court's own launch presentation and Dejusticia's research note. It states the system was still in user testing in April 2021. No court evaluation, metric or case outcome was found, and the court's PretorIA web page was not available."
  },
  "evidence": [
    {
      "kind": "news report",
      "citation": "Ámbito Jurídico (2020). 'Pretoria', la nueva herramienta tecnológica que apoyará la selección de tutelas de la Corte Constitucional. Legis, 27 Jul 2020.",
      "title": "'Pretoria', la nueva herramienta tecnológica que apoyará la selección de tutelas de la Corte Constitucional",
      "url": "https://www.ambitojuridico.com/noticias/tecnologia/constitucional-y-derechos-humanos/pretoria-la-nueva-herramienta-tecnologica-que",
      "date": "2020-07-27",
      "written_by": "independent",
      "quote": "el sistema puede procesar las sentencias en medio digital en menos de 2 minutos y arrojar las características y criterios claves de las sentencias"
    },
    {
      "kind": "news report",
      "citation": "Redacción Semana (2020). El salto de la Corte Constitucional a la tutela electrónica. Semana, 3 Jul 2020.",
      "title": "El salto de la Corte Constitucional a la tutela electrónica",
      "url": "https://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/corte-constitucional-implementara-revision-electronica-de-tutelas/683872/",
      "date": "2020-07-03",
      "written_by": "independent",
      "quote": "El programa Pretoria fue desarrollado por la Corte Constitucional, la Universidad de Buenos Aires y la Universidad del Rosario."
    },
    {
      "kind": "report",
      "citation": "Dejusticia (2021). Conoce nuestra investigación sobre PretorIA, la tecnología que incorpora la Inteligencia Artificial a la Corte Constitucional. Research by Víctor Práxedes Saavedra and Juan Carlos Upegui with Derechos Digitales, 19 Apr 2021.",
      "title": "Conoce nuestra investigación sobre PretorIA",
      "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20210419173924/https://www.dejusticia.org/conoce-nuestra-investigacion-sobre-pretoria-la-tecnologia-que-incorpora-la-inteligencia-artificial-a-la-corte-constitucional/",
      "date": "2021-04-19",
      "written_by": "independent",
      "quote": "En este momento PretorIA está en fase de prueba con los usuarios, es decir, los funcionarios de la Corte, para hacer los últimos ajustes."
    },
    {
      "kind": "news report",
      "citation": "El Tiempo (2020). 'Se parte en dos la historia de la tutela': presidenta de la Corte Constitucional (interview with Gloria Ortiz). 25 Jan 2020.",
      "title": "Corte ahora usa inteligencia artificial para manejar alud de tutelas",
      "url": "https://www.eltiempo.com/justicia/cortes/se-parte-en-dos-la-historia-de-la-tutela-presidenta-de-la-corte-constitucional-455344",
      "date": "2020-01-25",
      "written_by": "independent",
      "quote": "Un “ser” de inteligencia artificial tendrá a su cargo la revolución. Se llama Prometea."
    }
  ],
  "replication": {
    "produced_by": [
      "Transfer of the Prometea approach from the Universidad de Buenos Aires to the court, with the Universidad del Rosario",
      "Electronic filing of tutela files to the court from 30 July 2020, replacing paper",
      "A four-person in-house AI and data-science team at the court",
      "Classification categories defined by the court, starting with health rulings"
    ],
    "must_hold": [
      "Rulings arriving in digital, machine-readable form",
      "Classification accuracy acceptable to selection staff (not published)",
      "Human selection staff using the tool's output rather than bypassing it",
      "Continued institutional ownership after the launch partners withdrew"
    ],
    "echoes": []
  },
  "paired_incident": null,
  "headline": "Corte Constitucional's PretorIA remains in user testing in 2021",
  "metric": null,
  "comparator": {
    "against": "a person reading tutela files by hand to find the chamber's selection criterion",
    "before": "una persona tarda al menos un día para leer 30 expedientes",
    "after": "el sistema puede procesar las sentencias en medio digital en menos de 2 minutos",
    "basis": "assumed",
    "quote": "Y es que mientras una persona tarda al menos un día para leer 30 expedientes y encontrar el criterio o prioridad definida por el despacho, el sistema puede procesar las sentencias en medio digital en menos de 2 minutos y arrojar las características y criterios claves de las sentencias, lo que facilitará el análisis de la información para aplicar los criterios de selección.",
    "url": "https://www.ambitojuridico.com/noticias/tecnologia/constitucional-y-derechos-humanos/pretoria-la-nueva-herramienta-tecnologica-que"
  },
  "later": {
    "status": "unknown",
    "date": null,
    "note": "Dejusticia reported on 19 April 2021 that PretorIA was still in user testing with court staff. No later deployment, scale-up, withdrawal, or measured outcome is established.",
    "quote": null,
    "url": null
  },
  "value": null,
  "developer_country": "Colombia",
  "deployer_country": "Colombia",
  "unrated_because": null,
  "brief_notes": null,
  "brief": null,
  "revisions": [
    {
      "date": "2026-10-20",
      "change": "Record drafted from the cited sources.",
      "source": null,
      "editor": "AIBD"
    },
    {
      "date": "2026-10-21",
      "change": "Added what the benefit is measured against from the cited sources.",
      "source": "https://www.ambitojuridico.com/noticias/tecnologia/constitucional-y-derechos-humanos/pretoria-la-nueva-herramienta-tecnologica-que",
      "editor": "AIBD"
    },
    {
      "date": "2026-10-21",
      "change": "Country of the developer and the deployer added from the organization's own site or a registry.",
      "source": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Colombia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Colombia",
      "editor": "AIBD"
    },
    {
      "date": "2026-10-21",
      "change": "Prose pass: a rating reason, account, purpose, the system's part rewritten in shorter sentences with abbreviations expanded; facts, figures and quotations unchanged.",
      "source": null,
      "editor": "AIBD"
    },
    {
      "date": "2026-10-21",
      "change": "Notes about which sources could be read were reworded for readers; facts, figures and quotations unchanged.",
      "source": null,
      "editor": "AIBD"
    }
  ],
  "confidence": "studied",
  "shade": "high",
  "claim_status": "Independently studied",
  "claim_basis": "Sources: one independent report and three independent news reports. The cited evidence includes no finding by a regulator or court.",
  "profile": {
    "case_id": "AIBD-0334",
    "catalog_version": "1.0.0",
    "source_fingerprint": "b363a1be26ae57097aeae6dcfa46929befb925386d55fb901f8f3ad6b9094ce9",
    "collection_refs": [
      {
        "collection_id": "aibd",
        "version": "snapshot-8bf7cfec9cb185aa"
      },
      {
        "collection_id": "aibd",
        "version": "2026-10-25"
      }
    ],
    "source_ids": [
      "AIBD-0334-source-0001",
      "AIBD-0334-source-0002",
      "AIBD-0334-source-0003",
      "AIBD-0334-source-0004"
    ],
    "families": {
      "strategic assessments": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "record_ids": []
      },
      "evaluations": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "record_ids": []
      },
      "monetary observations": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "record_ids": []
      },
      "institutional decisions": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "record_ids": []
      }
    },
    "fields": {
      "actors[]": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "developer": "Corte Constitucional de Colombia with the Universidad de Buenos Aires (IALAB, Juan Corvalán) and the Universidad del Rosario",
            "deployer": "Corte Constitucional de Colombia"
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "developer",
            "deployer"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "actors[].ownership_control": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "ai_contribution": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "ai_role": {
              "status": "assessed",
              "statement": "PretorIA classifies and indexes lower-court tutela rulings for the court's selection staff. Selection remains a human decision (“amplía las capacidades de conocimiento del juez, sin reemplazarlo”, per Ámbito Jurídico). The only descriptions read are news reports of the court's own launch presentation and Dejusticia's research note. It states the system was still in user testing in April 2021. No court evaluation, metric or case outcome was found, and the court's PretorIA web page was not available."
            }
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "ai_role"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "ai_relationship": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "category": "general benefit",
            "ai_role": {
              "status": "assessed",
              "statement": "PretorIA classifies and indexes lower-court tutela rulings for the court's selection staff. Selection remains a human decision (“amplía las capacidades de conocimiento del juez, sin reemplazarlo”, per Ámbito Jurídico). The only descriptions read are news reports of the court's own launch presentation and Dejusticia's research note. It states the system was still in user testing in April 2021. No court evaluation, metric or case outcome was found, and the court's PretorIA web page was not available."
            }
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "ai_role",
            "category"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "assessments[].alternatives": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "assessments[].assessor_date": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "assessments[].depth": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "assessments[].display_confidence": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "structured",
          "data": {
            "confidence": "high",
            "evidence_word": "studied",
            "claim_status": "Independently studied",
            "basis": "Sources: one independent report and three independent news reports. The cited evidence includes no finding by a regulator or court.",
            "interpretation": "Existing display rule preserved; the richer outcome-specific confidence question still needs review."
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "curatorial",
          "basis": "Derived from the existing case display properties; not a new evidentiary judgment.",
          "record_fields": [],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "assessments[].rationale": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "ratings": [
              {
                "group": "personal",
                "reason": "No litigant outcome is documented."
              },
              {
                "group": "organizational",
                "reason": "General benefit. The processing-time claim is a developer statement at launch and the system was in testing in April 2021."
              },
              {
                "group": "societal",
                "reason": "General benefit. No effect on tutela selection quality or timeliness is documented."
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "ratings"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "assessments[].rubric_version": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "assessments[].status_basis": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "assessments[].target": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "ratings": [
              {
                "group": "personal",
                "reason": "No litigant outcome is documented."
              },
              {
                "group": "organizational",
                "reason": "General benefit. The processing-time claim is a developer statement at launch and the system was in testing in April 2021."
              },
              {
                "group": "societal",
                "reason": "General benefit. No effect on tutela selection quality or timeliness is documented."
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "ratings"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "availability": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "brief": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "case_kind": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "case_links[]": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "claims[].evidence_links": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "claims[].evidence_strength": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "claims[].missingness": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "claims[].proposition": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "cross_border_flows[]": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "decisions[].action_outcome": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "institutional decisions"
      },
      "decisions[].grounds": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "institutional decisions"
      },
      "decisions[].institution_task": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "institutional decisions"
      },
      "decisions[].success_criterion": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "institutional decisions"
      },
      "deployment_stage": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "economics[].amount": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "monetary observations"
      },
      "economics[].costs[]": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "monetary observations"
      },
      "economics[].counterfactual": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "monetary observations"
      },
      "economics[].currency_price_basis": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "monetary observations"
      },
      "economics[].gross_net": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "monetary observations"
      },
      "economics[].measure_type": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "monetary observations"
      },
      "economics[].period_unit": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "monetary observations"
      },
      "economics[].realization": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "monetary observations"
      },
      "economics[].recipient_payer": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "monetary observations"
      },
      "economics[].return_payback": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "monetary observations"
      },
      "economics[].valuation_method": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "monetary observations"
      },
      "evaluations[].ai_uplift": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "evaluations"
      },
      "evaluations[].comparator": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "evaluations"
      },
      "evaluations[].design": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "evaluations"
      },
      "evaluations[].effect": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "evaluations"
      },
      "evaluations[].exposure": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "evaluations"
      },
      "evaluations[].id": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "evaluations"
      },
      "evaluations[].measurement_method": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "evaluations"
      },
      "evaluations[].metric": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "evaluations"
      },
      "evaluations[].reproduction_materials": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "evaluations"
      },
      "evaluations[].setting_sample": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "evaluations"
      },
      "evaluations[].uncertainty_limitations": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "evaluations"
      },
      "external_references[]": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "follow_up[]": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "later": {
              "status": "unknown",
              "note": "Dejusticia reported on 19 April 2021 that PretorIA was still in user testing with court staff. No later deployment, scale-up, withdrawal, or measured outcome is established."
            }
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "later"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "human_oversight": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "id": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "id": "AIBD-0334"
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "id"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "infrastructure_dependencies[]": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "outcomes[].beneficiaries": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "outcomes[].beneficiary_count": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "outcomes[].benefit_type": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "benefit_type": "Improved Organizational Efficiency",
            "taxonomy_note": "The intended good is faster triage of tutela files, and no measured outcome exists because the system was still in testing."
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "benefit_type",
            "taxonomy_note"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "outcomes[].claim": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "account": "On 27 July 2020 Colombia's Corte Constitucional presented PretorIA at a virtual press conference organized by Corferias, according to Ámbito Jurídico. It is an artificial-intelligence system meant to support the selection of tutela (constitutional protection) rulings for review. The court receives about 620,242 tutela files a year (more than 2,500 rulings a day). PretorIA was to group, analyze and classify them by criteria the court prioritizes, offering search, categorization (initially for health rulings) and statistics. Developers claimed it could process rulings in under two minutes where a person needs at least a day to read 30 files. Semana (3 July 2020) reported that the program was developed by the court with the Universidad de Buenos Aires and the Universidad del Rosario. Alongside, the court unanimously decided to stop receiving paper files and to accept electronic filing from 30 July 2020. In January 2020 the court's president Gloria Ortiz had described the forthcoming tool to El Tiempo as Prometea, the Argentine system it derives from. Dejusticia's independent research (19 April 2021, with Derechos Digitales) found PretorIA still in a testing phase with court staff. It performed four functions (classification of lower-court rulings, search, non-narrative summaries and statistics), supported by a four-person in-house AI and data team. The Universidad de los Andes algorithm registry records a 2018 pilot and 2020 deployment without quantified metrics. No court statement of a verified outcome was reachable (the court's PretorIA page renders no text).",
            "benefit_type": "Improved Organizational Efficiency"
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "account",
            "benefit_type"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "outcomes[].distribution": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "outcomes[].duration": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "outcomes[].id": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "outcomes[].stakeholder_group": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "ratings": [
              {
                "group": "personal",
                "reason": "No litigant outcome is documented."
              },
              {
                "group": "organizational",
                "reason": "General benefit. The processing-time claim is a developer statement at launch and the system was in testing in April 2021."
              },
              {
                "group": "societal",
                "reason": "General benefit. No effect on tutela selection quality or timeliness is documented."
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "ratings"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "outcomes[].status": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "outcomes[].tradeoffs": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "outcomes[].unexpected": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "unexpected": false,
            "purpose": "Support, without replacing, the selection of tutela rulings for Constitutional Court review by classifying, searching and summarizing incoming rulings. The claimed benefit is faster, better-informed selection."
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "unexpected",
            "purpose"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "places[]": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "location": "Bogotá, Colombia",
            "developer_country": "Colombia",
            "deployer_country": "Colombia"
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "location",
            "developer_country",
            "deployer_country"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "purpose": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "purpose": "Support, without replacing, the selection of tutela rulings for Constitutional Court review by classifying, searching and summarizing incoming rulings. The claimed benefit is faster, better-informed selection."
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "purpose"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "record_dates": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "date_observed": "2020-07-27",
            "revisions": [
              {
                "date": "2026-10-20",
                "change": "Record drafted from the cited sources.",
                "editor": "AIBD"
              },
              {
                "date": "2026-10-21",
                "change": "Added what the benefit is measured against from the cited sources.",
                "source": "https://www.ambitojuridico.com/noticias/tecnologia/constitucional-y-derechos-humanos/pretoria-la-nueva-herramienta-tecnologica-que",
                "editor": "AIBD"
              },
              {
                "date": "2026-10-21",
                "change": "Country of the developer and the deployer added from the organization's own site or a registry.",
                "source": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Colombia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Colombia",
                "editor": "AIBD"
              },
              {
                "date": "2026-10-21",
                "change": "Prose pass: a rating reason, account, purpose, the system's part rewritten in shorter sentences with abbreviations expanded; facts, figures and quotations unchanged.",
                "editor": "AIBD"
              },
              {
                "date": "2026-10-21",
                "change": "Notes about which sources could be read were reworded for readers; facts, figures and quotations unchanged.",
                "editor": "AIBD"
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "date_observed",
            "revisions"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "replication.attempts[]": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "replication.conditions": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "replication": {
              "produced_by": [
                "Transfer of the Prometea approach from the Universidad de Buenos Aires to the court, with the Universidad del Rosario",
                "Electronic filing of tutela files to the court from 30 July 2020, replacing paper",
                "A four-person in-house AI and data-science team at the court",
                "Classification categories defined by the court, starting with health rulings"
              ],
              "must_hold": [
                "Rulings arriving in digital, machine-readable form",
                "Classification accuracy acceptable to selection staff (not published)",
                "Human selection staff using the tool's output rather than bypassing it",
                "Continued institutional ownership after the launch partners withdrew"
              ],
              "echoes": []
            }
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "replication"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "revision_history[]": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "revisions": [
              {
                "date": "2026-10-20",
                "change": "Record drafted from the cited sources.",
                "editor": "AIBD"
              },
              {
                "date": "2026-10-21",
                "change": "Added what the benefit is measured against from the cited sources.",
                "source": "https://www.ambitojuridico.com/noticias/tecnologia/constitucional-y-derechos-humanos/pretoria-la-nueva-herramienta-tecnologica-que",
                "editor": "AIBD"
              },
              {
                "date": "2026-10-21",
                "change": "Country of the developer and the deployer added from the organization's own site or a registry.",
                "source": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Colombia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Colombia",
                "editor": "AIBD"
              },
              {
                "date": "2026-10-21",
                "change": "Prose pass: a rating reason, account, purpose, the system's part rewritten in shorter sentences with abbreviations expanded; facts, figures and quotations unchanged.",
                "editor": "AIBD"
              },
              {
                "date": "2026-10-21",
                "change": "Notes about which sources could be read were reworded for readers; facts, figures and quotations unchanged.",
                "editor": "AIBD"
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "revisions"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "sector": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "domain": "Justice administration: constitutional review case selection",
            "segment": "Constitutional court case management"
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "domain",
            "segment"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "sources[].access_version": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "sources[].citation_locator": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "evidence": [
              {
                "kind": "news report",
                "citation": "Ámbito Jurídico (2020). 'Pretoria', la nueva herramienta tecnológica que apoyará la selección de tutelas de la Corte Constitucional. Legis, 27 Jul 2020.",
                "title": "'Pretoria', la nueva herramienta tecnológica que apoyará la selección de tutelas de la Corte Constitucional",
                "url": "https://www.ambitojuridico.com/noticias/tecnologia/constitucional-y-derechos-humanos/pretoria-la-nueva-herramienta-tecnologica-que",
                "date": "2020-07-27",
                "written_by": "independent",
                "quote": "el sistema puede procesar las sentencias en medio digital en menos de 2 minutos y arrojar las características y criterios claves de las sentencias"
              },
              {
                "kind": "news report",
                "citation": "Redacción Semana (2020). El salto de la Corte Constitucional a la tutela electrónica. Semana, 3 Jul 2020.",
                "title": "El salto de la Corte Constitucional a la tutela electrónica",
                "url": "https://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/corte-constitucional-implementara-revision-electronica-de-tutelas/683872/",
                "date": "2020-07-03",
                "written_by": "independent",
                "quote": "El programa Pretoria fue desarrollado por la Corte Constitucional, la Universidad de Buenos Aires y la Universidad del Rosario."
              },
              {
                "kind": "report",
                "citation": "Dejusticia (2021). Conoce nuestra investigación sobre PretorIA, la tecnología que incorpora la Inteligencia Artificial a la Corte Constitucional. Research by Víctor Práxedes Saavedra and Juan Carlos Upegui with Derechos Digitales, 19 Apr 2021.",
                "title": "Conoce nuestra investigación sobre PretorIA",
                "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20210419173924/https://www.dejusticia.org/conoce-nuestra-investigacion-sobre-pretoria-la-tecnologia-que-incorpora-la-inteligencia-artificial-a-la-corte-constitucional/",
                "date": "2021-04-19",
                "written_by": "independent",
                "quote": "En este momento PretorIA está en fase de prueba con los usuarios, es decir, los funcionarios de la Corte, para hacer los últimos ajustes."
              },
              {
                "kind": "news report",
                "citation": "El Tiempo (2020). 'Se parte en dos la historia de la tutela': presidenta de la Corte Constitucional (interview with Gloria Ortiz). 25 Jan 2020.",
                "title": "Corte ahora usa inteligencia artificial para manejar alud de tutelas",
                "url": "https://www.eltiempo.com/justicia/cortes/se-parte-en-dos-la-historia-de-la-tutela-presidenta-de-la-corte-constitucional-455344",
                "date": "2020-01-25",
                "written_by": "independent",
                "quote": "Un “ser” de inteligencia artificial tendrá a su cargo la revolución. Se llama Prometea."
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "evidence"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "sources[].id": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "identifiers",
          "identifiers": [
            "AIBD-0334-source-0001",
            "AIBD-0334-source-0002",
            "AIBD-0334-source-0003",
            "AIBD-0334-source-0004"
          ],
          "role": "Existing evidence items, in their original order"
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "curatorial",
          "basis": "Stable within the fingerprinted record version; no source content or source review has been added.",
          "record_fields": [],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "complete"
      },
      "sources[].language": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "sources[].relationship": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "evidence": [
              {
                "kind": "news report",
                "citation": "Ámbito Jurídico (2020). 'Pretoria', la nueva herramienta tecnológica que apoyará la selección de tutelas de la Corte Constitucional. Legis, 27 Jul 2020.",
                "title": "'Pretoria', la nueva herramienta tecnológica que apoyará la selección de tutelas de la Corte Constitucional",
                "url": "https://www.ambitojuridico.com/noticias/tecnologia/constitucional-y-derechos-humanos/pretoria-la-nueva-herramienta-tecnologica-que",
                "date": "2020-07-27",
                "written_by": "independent",
                "quote": "el sistema puede procesar las sentencias en medio digital en menos de 2 minutos y arrojar las características y criterios claves de las sentencias"
              },
              {
                "kind": "news report",
                "citation": "Redacción Semana (2020). El salto de la Corte Constitucional a la tutela electrónica. Semana, 3 Jul 2020.",
                "title": "El salto de la Corte Constitucional a la tutela electrónica",
                "url": "https://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/corte-constitucional-implementara-revision-electronica-de-tutelas/683872/",
                "date": "2020-07-03",
                "written_by": "independent",
                "quote": "El programa Pretoria fue desarrollado por la Corte Constitucional, la Universidad de Buenos Aires y la Universidad del Rosario."
              },
              {
                "kind": "report",
                "citation": "Dejusticia (2021). Conoce nuestra investigación sobre PretorIA, la tecnología que incorpora la Inteligencia Artificial a la Corte Constitucional. Research by Víctor Práxedes Saavedra and Juan Carlos Upegui with Derechos Digitales, 19 Apr 2021.",
                "title": "Conoce nuestra investigación sobre PretorIA",
                "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20210419173924/https://www.dejusticia.org/conoce-nuestra-investigacion-sobre-pretoria-la-tecnologia-que-incorpora-la-inteligencia-artificial-a-la-corte-constitucional/",
                "date": "2021-04-19",
                "written_by": "independent",
                "quote": "En este momento PretorIA está en fase de prueba con los usuarios, es decir, los funcionarios de la Corte, para hacer los últimos ajustes."
              },
              {
                "kind": "news report",
                "citation": "El Tiempo (2020). 'Se parte en dos la historia de la tutela': presidenta de la Corte Constitucional (interview with Gloria Ortiz). 25 Jan 2020.",
                "title": "Corte ahora usa inteligencia artificial para manejar alud de tutelas",
                "url": "https://www.eltiempo.com/justicia/cortes/se-parte-en-dos-la-historia-de-la-tutela-presidenta-de-la-corte-constitucional-455344",
                "date": "2020-01-25",
                "written_by": "independent",
                "quote": "Un “ser” de inteligencia artificial tendrá a su cargo la revolución. Se llama Prometea."
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "evidence"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "sources[].upstream_sources": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "strategic_assessments[]": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial",
        "family": "strategic assessments"
      },
      "summary": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "summary": "PretorIA, presented by the Corte Constitucional on 27 July 2020 to support tutela selection (620,242 tutelas in 2019), was in user-testing in Apr 2021 (Dejusticia); no quantified outcome found.",
            "account": "On 27 July 2020 Colombia's Corte Constitucional presented PretorIA at a virtual press conference organized by Corferias, according to Ámbito Jurídico. It is an artificial-intelligence system meant to support the selection of tutela (constitutional protection) rulings for review. The court receives about 620,242 tutela files a year (more than 2,500 rulings a day). PretorIA was to group, analyze and classify them by criteria the court prioritizes, offering search, categorization (initially for health rulings) and statistics. Developers claimed it could process rulings in under two minutes where a person needs at least a day to read 30 files. Semana (3 July 2020) reported that the program was developed by the court with the Universidad de Buenos Aires and the Universidad del Rosario. Alongside, the court unanimously decided to stop receiving paper files and to accept electronic filing from 30 July 2020. In January 2020 the court's president Gloria Ortiz had described the forthcoming tool to El Tiempo as Prometea, the Argentine system it derives from. Dejusticia's independent research (19 April 2021, with Derechos Digitales) found PretorIA still in a testing phase with court staff. It performed four functions (classification of lower-court rulings, search, non-narrative summaries and statistics), supported by a four-person in-house AI and data team. The Universidad de los Andes algorithm registry records a 2018 pilot and 2020 deployment without quantified metrics. No court statement of a verified outcome was reachable (the court's PretorIA page renders no text)."
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "summary",
            "account"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "systems[].autonomy_permissions": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "systems[].component_role": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "systems[].deployment_configuration": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "systems[].inputs_outputs": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "systems[].model_name": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "systems[].model_version": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "systems[].product_name": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "system": "PretorIA (Corte Constitucional tutela classification and search system, derived from Argentina's Prometea)"
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "system"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "systems[].provider": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "structured",
          "data": {
            "application_developer": "Corte Constitucional de Colombia with the Universidad de Buenos Aires (IALAB, Juan Corvalán) and the Universidad del Rosario"
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Mapped from the existing case description without a new external source review.",
          "record_fields": [
            "developer"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "taxonomy_crosswalks[]": {
        "state": "not_assessed",
        "review_state": "not_assessed",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "title": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "title": "Colombia's Constitutional Court presents PretorIA (July 2020), an AI system to classify and search tutela rulings for selection; still in user testing in April 2021, no outcome metrics published",
            "headline": "Corte Constitucional's PretorIA remains in user testing in 2021"
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "title",
            "headline"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      },
      "version": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "identifiers",
          "identifiers": [
            "b363a1be26ae57097aeae6dcfa46929befb925386d55fb901f8f3ad6b9094ce9"
          ],
          "role": "SHA-256 of normalized original case data"
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "curatorial",
          "basis": "Deterministic content version assigned by the local migration.",
          "record_fields": [],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "complete"
      },
      "workflow": {
        "state": "value_present",
        "value": {
          "kind": "record_fields",
          "fields": {
            "account": "On 27 July 2020 Colombia's Corte Constitucional presented PretorIA at a virtual press conference organized by Corferias, according to Ámbito Jurídico. It is an artificial-intelligence system meant to support the selection of tutela (constitutional protection) rulings for review. The court receives about 620,242 tutela files a year (more than 2,500 rulings a day). PretorIA was to group, analyze and classify them by criteria the court prioritizes, offering search, categorization (initially for health rulings) and statistics. Developers claimed it could process rulings in under two minutes where a person needs at least a day to read 30 files. Semana (3 July 2020) reported that the program was developed by the court with the Universidad de Buenos Aires and the Universidad del Rosario. Alongside, the court unanimously decided to stop receiving paper files and to accept electronic filing from 30 July 2020. In January 2020 the court's president Gloria Ortiz had described the forthcoming tool to El Tiempo as Prometea, the Argentine system it derives from. Dejusticia's independent research (19 April 2021, with Derechos Digitales) found PretorIA still in a testing phase with court staff. It performed four functions (classification of lower-court rulings, search, non-narrative summaries and statistics), supported by a four-person in-house AI and data team. The Universidad de los Andes algorithm registry records a 2018 pilot and 2020 deployment without quantified metrics. No court statement of a verified outcome was reachable (the court's PretorIA page renders no text).",
            "replication": {
              "produced_by": [
                "Transfer of the Prometea approach from the Universidad de Buenos Aires to the court, with the Universidad del Rosario",
                "Electronic filing of tutela files to the court from 30 July 2020, replacing paper",
                "A four-person in-house AI and data-science team at the court",
                "Classification categories defined by the court, starting with health rulings"
              ],
              "must_hold": [
                "Rulings arriving in digital, machine-readable form",
                "Classification accuracy acceptable to selection staff (not published)",
                "Human selection staff using the tool's output rather than bypassing it",
                "Continued institutional ownership after the launch partners withdrew"
              ],
              "echoes": []
            }
          }
        },
        "provenance": {
          "kind": "legacy_record",
          "basis": "Preserved from the existing AIBD record; external sources were not rechecked.",
          "record_fields": [
            "account",
            "replication"
          ],
          "source_refs": []
        },
        "review_state": "record_mapped",
        "coverage": "partial"
      }
    },
    "summary": {
      "total": 91,
      "addressed": 91,
      "known": 27,
      "reviewed": 0,
      "record_mapped": 27,
      "not_assessed": 64,
      "complete": false,
      "by_state": {
        "value_present": 27,
        "not_reported": 0,
        "unresolved": 0,
        "not_assessed": 64,
        "not_applicable": 0,
        "withheld": 0,
        "source_unavailable": 0
      }
    }
  }
}