The law layer · Brazil · judicial regulation
Brazil: CNJ Resolution No. 615/2025
Conselho Nacional de Justiça, Resolution No. 615 of 11 March 2025 · revoking Resolution No. 332/2020
Page verified 5 August 2026. We could not open the Resolution from this session, so everything below is recorded from contemporaneous reporting and official statements rather than quoted from the document. We say so rather than imply we read it.
The most institutionally developed judicial AI regime anywhere. Brazil did not issue guidance. It built an architecture: risk tiers, a mandatory registration and audit platform, and a national committee to run it.
What it does
- ReplacesResolution No. 332/2020, revoked. This is the second generation, written after generative AI arrived.
- Risk tiersCourts must categorise AI solutions as low-risk, high-risk or excessive-risk, with an annex giving example purposes and contexts for each.
- Registration and auditMandatory registration and auditing of systems through the Sinapses platform.
- OversightCreates the National Committee for AI in the Judiciary to coordinate implementation and oversight.
- The boundaryAI shall not replace the role of judges; it must operate as a tool supporting judicial activity.
Why it is the most advanced of its kind
Every other judiciary on this record has published a document. Brazil built infrastructure. A registration platform means there is a list of every AI system in use across the judiciary. An audit requirement means someone checks. A standing committee means the regime is maintained rather than issued and forgotten.
Set that against the honest counter-example: Ireland’s Courts Service reported in June 2026 that its own judicial AI assistant proof of concept was not fit for purpose. Both are healthy. One jurisdiction built the oversight apparatus; another published its failure. Both are more useful than a policy nobody tests.
The pattern it belongs to
Brazil, Illinois and Korea have now independently reached the same conclusion within sixteen months: publication is not enough, someone independent has to check.
What to do about it
This is an estate problem, not a document problem.
An audit platform asks what a system did, not what a policy said it would do. That is answered with records generated as the events happened, registered and checkable by someone who was not there. Regulayer records the decision as it is taken, outside the system being governed, content-free, and verifiable by anyone holding the file with public mathematics.
Regulayer for enterpriseThe AI audit trail →
For an individual practitioner, the same engine is $349 a month with a free week: start sealing. See also every jurisdiction we track.
Sources
- Resolution No. 615/2025 of 11 March 2025, as published by the Council of Europe
- Not read in full from this session. Recorded from the Council of Europe publication and Brazilian and international analysis. We carry no article numbers.
Related
- The law layer
- Brazil · LGPD
- Illinois · SB 315, the audit parallel
- AI rules for lawyers, country by country
Checked 5 August 2026. Not read in full at source. Information, not legal advice, and not advice on Brazilian law.
Common questions
What is CNJ Resolution 615/2025?
A resolution of Brazil's National Council of Justice, published on 11 March 2025, establishing guidelines for the development, use and governance of artificial intelligence solutions in the judiciary. It revoked and replaced Resolution No. 332/2020, updating the framework in response to generative AI.
How does Brazil classify judicial AI risk?
Courts must categorise AI solutions as low-risk, high-risk or excessive-risk, with an annex to the Resolution listing purposes and contexts as examples of what falls into each category. It is a risk-tiered architecture comparable in shape to the EU AI Act's, applied to the courts themselves.
Does Brazil audit AI used in its courts?
Yes. The Resolution mandates registration and auditing of systems via the Sinapses platform, and creates a National Committee for AI in the Judiciary to coordinate implementation and oversight.
Can AI decide cases in Brazil?
No. The Resolution provides that AI shall not replace the role of judges and must operate as a tool supporting judicial activity. That is the same boundary drawn by the Hong Kong Judiciary, the Canadian Judicial Council and the Kerala High Court.
Information, not legal advice, and not advice on the law of any jurisdiction. Every entry is verified against the issuing body’s own document; where a source is reporting rather than the document, we say so.