On Thursday, 23 April 2026, the research seminar titled “Rule of Law in the Digital Age: Constitutional and Judicial Challenges. The Cases of Chile and Italy” was held, delivered by María Isabel Cornejo Plaza, Jean Monnet Chair at the Universidad Autónoma de Chile, and Roberto Cippitani, Jean Monnet Chair at the Università degli Studi di Perugia. This activity forms part of the research projects funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (PID2021‑126765NB‑I00, MICINN), led by Principal Investigators Susana Sanz Caballero (IP1) and Antonio Bar Cendón (IP2), and by the GVA project AICO/2024/191, directed by Principal Investigator Susana Sanz Caballero, both focused on the crisis of the Rule of Law in Europe and resilience in the face of hybrid threats.
Link to the news item at Actualidad CEU: Estado de Derecho y derechos digitales en Italia, Chile y España
Link to the Research Seminar Announcement: Seminario de investigación: | año 2026 | CEU UCH
Link to the Ciencia CEU UCH X post: Ciencia CEU UCH on X: “Derechos digitales: otra dimensión de la crisis del Estado de Derecho, analizada por el grupo de investigación @RoLcrisisEU de @uchceu ⚖️🇪🇺 Con 2 catedráticos Jean Monnet: Mª Isabel Cornejo, de @autonomadechile 🇨🇱 Roberto Cippitani, de @UniperugiaNews 🇮🇹 https://t.co/43T4p3izKo” / X
Link to the Rule of Law Crisis EU X post: Rule of Law Crisis EU 🇪🇺 on X: “El grupo de investigación liderado por Susana Sanz ha recibido en @uchceu a @robertocippi (@UniperugiaNews) y a Isabel Cornejo (@autonomadechile) para analizar el referéndum constitucional en Italia de 2026, el proceso constituyente en Chile y su impacto en los derechos digitales https://t.co/n8mUnRLx43” / X
Judicial Independence, digital justice, and the Rule of Law
First, Roberto Cippitani, Jean Monnet Chair at the Università degli Studi di Perugia, delivered his lecture titled: “Judicial Independence, Digital Justice, and the Rule of Law: Reflections on the 2026 Italian Constitutional Referendum.” During his presentation, he traced the evolution of the efforts to reform the Italian judiciary. Since the late 1980s, debates have emerged regarding the separation of career paths between the judiciary and the public prosecutor’s office. And it was in the 1990s that a different discourse began to take shape, partly driven by the prosecution of several political leaders of that period. At that time, the issue of accusing judges of acting as political actors started to surface. As Cippitani notes, “in the First Republic there were conflicts with judges, but they were not ideological conflicts; they arose from specific cases, and it was rare for such matters to appear in political discourse. They were not part of the public debate.”
Attempt to reform the Italian judicial system
In light of the Meloni Government’s proposal to hold a referendum on the issue of the judiciary, the constitutional referendum held on 22–23 March 2026 produced the following results (Sources: Viminale Eligendo; YouTrend; Il Sole 24 Ore, 23 March 2026):
- NO (53.25%)
- YES (46.75%)
- Turnout (58.9%)
The Meloni–Nordi reform proposal was structured around four main pillars:
- Separation of career paths: The reform proposed separating the career tracks of giudicanti (judges) and requirenti (prosecutors) from the moment of entry into the profession, through an amendment to article 104 of the Italian Constitution. However, this measure could come into tension with article 112, which establishes the mandatory nature of criminal prosecution, and article 3, which enshrines the principle of equality.
- Division of the High Council of the Judiciary: The reform envisaged splitting the current self-governing body of the judiciary into two separate councils (one for judges and one for prosecutors), with the additional proposal that the judicial members be selected by lot. According to the Venice Commission, this measure could undermine the judiciary’s capacity for self-governance due to the risk of politicisation and the principle of non‑regression, as the speaker noted.
- High Disciplinary Court: The proposal sought to remove disciplinary powers from the current High Council of the Judiciary and to establish a closed system of appeals (excluding recourse to the Court of Cassation). These measures could conflict with Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
- “Blank” delegation: Under this mechanism, essential aspects (majorities, requirements, competitive examinations) would be delegated to future ordinary legislation, creating a risk of influence by the political majority in power.
From the perspective of the European regulatory framework, several issues arise under both European Union law and the Council of Europe’s human rights system, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Likewise, as Cippitani notes, “many international reports indicate that, particularly in recent years, there has been regression in sensitive areas.” He adds that something similar has occurred with regard to freedom of the press as a result of political discourse in Italy, given that both the press and the judiciary have been subjected to pressure and sanctions. “All of this is troubling for the Rule of Law, as it reflects a democracy that misuses its legal instruments,” the speaker emphasised.
Digital Justice and Artificial Intelligence
The impact of artificial intelligence has significant effects on the judicial sphere. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Regulation considers judicial activity to be one of the areas in which the use of AI is most dangerous and therefore carries the highest level of risk.
Roberto Cippitani stresses that “certain rules and ethical principles must be followed, such as human oversight and transparency.” He also notes that European countries such as Spain and Italy are incorporating these principles in accordance with the Artificial Intelligence Act and the broader EU regulatory framework. This entails the adoption of specific rules, including technical requirements not only concerning the use of software but also relating to judges’ competencies and the technical assessment of judgments through the use of artificial intelligence. Cippitani warns that “the use of artificial intelligence in judicial decisions is risky and dangerous, and it may affect the Rule of Law. Training is not neutral. This could have problematic effects in the medium and long term.”
Constituent Process as a Crisis of the Rule of Law and Digital Rights in Chile
María Isabel Cornejo Plaza, Jean Monnet Chair at the Universidad Autónoma de Chile, presented her lecture titled “The Constituent Process as a Crisis of the Rule of Law and Its Consequences for Digital Rights in Chile.” In her intervention, she outlined the regulatory trajectory of digital‑related concepts within Chilean legislation, particularly the constitutional recognition of neuro‑rights, which led to the constitutionalisation of protections for brain activity between 2020 and 2021.
The intention to reform the Chilean Constitution became evident in 2019, when one million people took to the streets in October to demonstrate peacefully. Public debate began to focus on the crisis of the Rule of Law and, although the institutional framework did not collapse, the situation did affect human rights standards, for example, through the use of deepfakes, which were noted by human rights observers. Thus, the Chilean constituent process must be understood as a political response to a crisis of state legitimacy, rather than merely an institutional procedure. This crisis manifested itself politically, socially, and legally, placing pressure on the Rule of Law in both its formal dimensions (application of the law, procedural guarantees) and its substantive dimensions (legitimacy, proportionality, and the protection of rights).
In 2020 and 2021, the regulation of neuro‑rights underwent further development due to advances in artificial intelligence and the efforts of a group advocating the importance of giving legal form to an issue that was only beginning to emerge in academic debate, yet viewed critically by many legal scholars, as Isabel Cornejo points out.
Regulation of Digital Rights in Chile
With regard to digital rights, the Constitutional Convention and the subsequent public debate brought significant visibility to digital principles and guarantees (connectivity as a right, data protection, algorithmic transparency, data sovereignty and public data governance, and limits on the police or statistical use of technologies). However, the normative implementation of these principles was ultimately constrained by the rejection of the draft constitution in the 2022 plebiscite and by the political developments that followed. Despite this, the process had indirect institutional and regulatory effects on Chile’s digital agenda.
In this context, a social pact was forged and negotiations took place under the leadership of President Sebastián Piñera together with other political actors. Ultimately, a referendum was held on 4 September 2022, in which 64% of Chileans voted against the proposed constitutional text, drafted by a team that was, as Cornejo notes, more technical than political. Thus, the 2022 referendum demonstrated that neuro‑rights were not an issue of significant interest to Chilean society. The Political Constitution of the Republic, which had incorporated neuro‑rights in 2020–21, therefore remained in force.
In subsequent years, additional technology‑related rights have been discussed, such as digital rights, the right to internet access, net neutrality, digital portability, and the right to rectification online, without any explicit reference to neuro‑rights. Although Chile is neither a major consumer nor producer of neurotechnology, the country has, circumstantially, seen renewed attention to the issue thanks to the organisation of the “Futuro” Congress, attended by leading figures in research and science who have highlighted the importance of strengthening the protection of neuro‑rights.
Digital rights were not ultimately enshrined, but the debates initiated during the constituent process have persisted and have enabled other political actors to promote a new series of legislative proposals, which are currently under discussion in the Chilean Senate. For this reason, as Professor Isabel Cornejo argues, there is “a clear momentum toward digital rights and the constitutional recognition of neuro‑rights.”
In conclusion, the research seminar delivered by Roberto Cippitani and María Isabel Cornejo has made it possible to observe how two seemingly distant legal realities, like the magistrature in Italy and digital rights in Chile, converge in a common challenge: the need to adapt institutional and regulatory structures to a constantly evolving social and technological environment. The analysis of the Italian magistrature highlights the importance of having solid, independent judicial systems capable of responding to contemporary democratic demands. Meanwhile, the study of digital rights in Chile shows how the protection of citizens in the digital sphere has become an essential component of fundamental rights in the twenty‑first century.
