Les récents développements de l’intelligence artificielle, de l’Internet des objets et des outils de reconnaissance vocale, couplés à la démocratisation des appareils électroniques de grande consommation et à la couverture Internet étendue maintenant disponible dans plusieurs pays industrialisés, ont permis la mise en marché à grande échelle d’assistants vocaux personnels, qui consistent en des logiciels installés sur différents appareils tels que des téléphones cellulaires et des haut-parleurs connectés permettant aux utilisateurs de ces appareils d’interagir avec ceux-ci au moyen de commandes vocales. L’adoption de technologies permettant aux utilisateurs d’interagir avec des objets connectés à l’Internet au moyen de leur voix connaît une forte croissance, et celles-ci constitueront bientôt l’un des modes d’interaction privilégiés pour utiliser l’Internet. Considérant la vaste nature des opérations réalisées au moyen de l’Internet en général et de l’Internet des objets en particulier, il convient de se questionner sur la manière de documenter les interactions entre un utilisateur et un assistant vocal. Le présent mémoire adopte une approche comparant le cadre juridique québécois à différents cadres juridiques avec l’objectif de procéder à une qualification technique et juridique des assistants vocaux et des éléments de preuve en découlant. Dans un second temps, ce mémoire s’intéresse à la recevabilité et à la force probante de ces éléments de preuve dans le contexte du droit civil québécois. L’auteur se penche sur les conditions de recevabilité, discutant de la qualification du document technologique et de ses attributs, nommément ainsi qu’en premier lieu son authenticité et son intégrité et de la proportionnalité. L’auteur discute des exceptions à la recevabilité, soit spécifiquement l’atteinte aux droits fondamentaux et le respect du secret professionnel. Ensuite, l’auteur discute de la force probante de la preuve technologique en avançant que la compréhension de la technologie sous-jacente est l’élément clef dans l’évaluation de la force probante de tout élément de preuve technologique. L’auteur propose que l’intelligence artificielle relève d’une nouvelle catégorie de preuve qui commande peut-être des changements à la procédure et aux principes judiciaires québécois. / Recent developments in the fields of artificial intelligence, of the Internet of Things and of voice recognition, together with the accessibility to electronic devices and wide Internet connection in the industrialized countries, led to the introduction of virtual personal assistants. This software, installed on various devices such as mobile phones and smart speakers, allow their users to interact with these devices using their voice. As these technologies allow their users to interact with connected devices through the Internet, they will most likely become the main gateway to the Internet in a near future. Considering the great variety of tasks performed with connected devices, the legal questions regarding evidence generated by and collected from their use must now be asked. First, this master’s thesis will compare the normative frameworks of both Quebec and other jurisdictions in order to define, technologically and legally, the virtual personal assistants and the evidence they generate. In a second time, this thesis will focus on the admissibility and the probative value of the evidence garnered from virtual personal assistants, in the context of Quebec’s civilist tradition. The author focuses on the conditions of admissibility and on the designation of technological documents and of their characteristics, analyzing first and foremost the criteria of authenticity and integrity and the questions of proportionality. The author discusses exceptions to admissibility, especially the violation of a fundamental right and privilege considerations. Furthermore, the author discusses the probative value of technological evidence, proposing that the understanding of the underlying technology is a key factor in the determination of the probative value of any technological evidence. Finally, the author suggests that artificial intelligence creates a new category of technological evidence that might be calling for changes in the judicial principles and procedures of the province of Quebec.

<p>Karakteristika hiperboličnih sistema zakona odrržanja je da čak i u slučaju glatkog po-četnog uslova re&scaron;enja uglavnom razvijaju prekide u konačnom vremena. Zbog toga se posmatraju slaba re&scaron;enja koja dati sistem zadovoljavaju u distributivnom smislu i mogu biti čak i neograničena &scaron;to se ispoljava kroz pojavu Dirakove delta funkcije u re&scaron;enju. U ovoj disertaciji se akcenat stavlja na analizu protoka sti&scaron;ljivog neviskoznog fluida koji ne menja pravac prilikom kretanja. Protok je opisan Ojlerovim sistemom iz gasne dinamike koji se sastoji iz zakona održanja mase, količine kretanja i energije, dok su karakteristike fluida određene konstitutivnim relacijama. U slučaju izentropskog ili izotermnog protoka sistem se svodi na zakone održanja mase i količine kretanja. Glatka re&scaron;enja takvog sistema automatski zadovoljavaju zakon održanja energije, dok prelaskom na slabu formulaciju dolazi do gubitka energije. Za predstavnike sistema gasne dinamike sa nepozitivnim pritiskom su uzeti sistem gasne dinamike bez pritiska i model za&nbsp; Čapliginov gas i njegova uop&scaron;tenja. Data su re&scaron;enja Rimanovih problema za te sisteme koja se mogu predstaviti kao kombinacija klasičnih elementarnih talasa i senka talasa koji aproksimiraju re&scaron;enja u obliku delta udarnih talasa i koji omogućavaju re&scaron;avanje početnog problema koji u početnom uslovu sadrži delta funkciju. Na primeru modela za uop&scaron;ten Čapliginov gas dokazano je da uslov prekompresivnosti nije jači od entropijskog uslova, &scaron;to je prvi takav rezultat u literaturi. Dalje su kori&scaron;ćena re&scaron;enja Rimanovih problema, kao i problema singularne interakcije i dat je algoritam za konstrukciju globalnog dopustivog približnog re&scaron;enja početnog problema za sistem gasne dinamike bez pritiska. Algoritam je univerzalan i ideja se može pro&scaron;iriti na veliki broj sistema zakona održanja i veliki broj početnih uslova. Diskutovane su promene energije u približnom re&scaron;enju i posle interakcija. Dobijeno približno re&scaron;enje slabo konvergira u prostoru Radonovih mera sa predznakom.</p> / <p>&nbsp;</p><p class="MsoNormal">A solutions to hyperbolic conservation laws systems starting out as smooth often develop singularities in a finite time. As a consequence, we are forced to look for weak solutions that satisfy the system in distributional sense. Those solutions are often unbounded, which is expressed through the appearance of Dirac delta function. In this theses we study a one-dimensional, compressible and inviscid flow of a fluid. The process is described by compressible Euler gas dynamics system which consists of conservation laws of mass, linear momentum and energy, while the characteristics of the fluid are described using constitutive relations. In the case of isentropic or isothermal flow the system reduces to conservation laws of mass and linear momentum. The energy is conserved for smooth solutions to such systems, but while passing to the weak formulation the energy is being dissipated. As representatives, we&nbsp; consider pressureless gas dynamics system, as well as Chaplygin gas model and its generalizations. We give the solutions to Riemann problems which can be represented as a combinations of classical elementary waves and shadow waves that approximate the solutions in the form of delta shock and allow as to solve the problems with initial data containing delta function. We use generalized Chaplygin gas model as demonstration of the fact that overcompressibility condition is not stronger that entropy condition, which is the first result of that kind in the literature. Further, we use solutions&nbsp; to the Riemann problems, as well as singular interaction problems to give the algorithm for construction of global admissible approximate solution to the pressureless gas dynamics initial value problem. The algorithm is universal and idea can be applied to large number of conservation laws systems and large number of initial data. We discuss&nbsp; energy changes in approximate solution and after the interactions. The constructed approximate solution converges in the space of signed Radon measures.</p><p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45;-"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument></xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles></xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]><style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;mso-style-noshow:yes;mso-style-priority:99;mso-style-qformat:yes;mso-style-parent:"";mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;mso-para-margin-top:0in;mso-para-margin-right:0in;mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;mso-para-margin-left:0in;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}</style><![endif]--></p>

[pt] O trabalho tem como objetivo analisar os modelos de aplicação tecnológica dos precedentes judiciais pelo STF, que possuem a intenção de automatizar o juízo de admissibilidade, e, verificar se tal tecnologia pode ser utilizada sem infringir os princípios constitucionais, especialmente o devido processo legal. O cerne do estudo está consubstanciado nas ferramentas de inteligência artificial que vem sendo utilizadas pelo Poder Judiciário com o objetivo de auxiliar a atividade jurisdicional a lidar como fenômeno da hiperjudicialização. Para tanto, apresentamos o sistema de precedentes do Código de Processo Civil de 2015 que tem como finalidade a garantia e aplicação dos princípios da isonomia e segurança jurídica, assim como diminuir o problema das ações repetitivas. Trabalhou-se também os sistemas de inteligência artificial utilizados, assim como os problemas mais relevantes que eles apresentam tais como, data sets viciados, opacidade algorítmica e discriminação racial e social. Abordou-se também a utilização do Sistema Victor pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal que tem como finalidade automatizar o juízo de admissibilidade dos recursos. Por fim, procurou-se avaliar de que modo as tecnologias podem contribuir para um mais eficaz processamento dos recursos, em especial no que diz respeito ao juízo de admissibilidade. / [en] The purpose of this study is to analyze the models of technological application of judicial precedents by the STF, which intend to automate the admissibility determination, and to determine whether such technology can be used without violating constitutional principles, particularly due process of law. The core of the study consists of the artificial intelligence tools utilized by the Judiciary to assist the judicial activity in dealing with the phenomenon of hyperjudicialization. Consequently, we present the precedent system of the Civil Procedure Code of 2015, which aims to ensure and apply the principles of isonomy and legal certainty, as well as reduce the problem of repetitive actions. In addition, the employed artificial intelligence systems and the most pertinent problems they present, such as biased data sets, algorithmic opacity, and racial and social discrimination, were examined. The Federal Supreme Court s use of the Victor System, which aims to automate the appeals admissibility determination, was also discussed. Lastly, an effort was made to evaluate how technologies can contribute to a more efficient appeals processing, particularly with regard to the admissibility determination.

L’utilisation croissante de l’information audiovisuelle devant les tribunaux de droit pénal international indique une trajectoire qui oblige à considérer plus attentivement les enjeux soulevés par ce type de preuve à partir de sa collecte, sa conservation jusqu’à son utilisation dans le cadre d’un procès. Ces enjeux peuvent être variés et se rattacher à la véracité, l’authenticité et l’intégrité du contenu d’une telle information. Dans le cadre de ce mémoire, nous plaidons, au moins, pour une approche rigoureuse dans l’évaluation de la preuve audiovisuelle, et ce, tout au long du processus judiciaire d’une affaire devant la CPI, ou au plus, pour un encadrement objectif des règles applicables à la preuve audiovisuelle, et ce, en s’écartant du principe général de souplesse et de flexibilité fortement ancré dans la culture de l’administration de la preuve devant cette institution, pour adopter une approche stricte et rigoureuse. Laquelle favoriserait, d’une part, l’application du critère préalable de fiabilité lors de la phase de l’introduction d’un élément de preuve audiovisuel, et d’autre part, l’application d’une méthode d’évaluation de la preuve audiovisuelle basée sur le modèle d’admission. La présence d’une phase préalable d’analyse substantielle des éléments sensibles, tels que les éléments de preuve audiovisuels, n’implique pas forcément une perte du pouvoir discrétionnaire des juges à renvoyer l’évaluation des éléments de preuve introduits à la fin du processus. L’enjeu fondamental réside dans le fait que le critère préalable de fiabilité et le modèle d’admission permettraient de tempérer le pouvoir discrétionnaire des juges et favoriseraient une analyse plus diligente et rigoureuse des éléments de preuve audiovisuels. À notre avis, cette démarche devra être initiée par les juges des chambres préliminaires et de première instance, en leur qualité de juges de faits et de la preuve, et se concrétiser sur le terrain par les premiers et différents intervenants impliqués dans le processus judiciaire de cette institution. / The increasing use of audiovisual information before international criminal courts is indicative of a trajectory that calls for a closer look at the issues raised by this type of evidence, from its collection and preservation to its use in court. These issues can be varied and relate to the veracity, authenticity and integrity of the content of such information. In this research Paper, we argue for at least a rigorous approach to the evaluation of digital evidence, throughout the judicial process of a case before the ICC, or at most, an objective framing of the rules applicable to digital evidence, departing from the general principle of flexibility strongly rooted in the culture of the administration of evidence before this institution, in favor of a strict and rigorous approach. This would favor the application of the preliminary criterion of reliability when introducing audiovisual evidence, and the application of a method for evaluating audiovisual evidence based on the admission model. The presence of a substantial preliminary analysis phase for sensitive elements, such as digital evidence, does not necessarily imply a loss of judicial discretion to defer the evaluation of the evidence produced to the end of the process. What is fundamentally at stake is the fact that the prior reliability criterion and the admission model would temper judicial discretion and encourage a more diligent and rigorous analysis of digital evidence. In our opinion, this approach should be initiated by the judges of the preliminary and trial chambers, in their capacity as judges of fact and evidence, and implemented in the field by the first and various stakeholders involved in the judicial process of this institution.

Text in Afrikaans / Artikel 35(5) van die Grondwet 108 van 1996 handel oor die uitsluiting van ongrondwetlike getuienis en bepaal dat sodanige getuienis uitgesluit moet word indien toelating daarvan sal lei tot 'n onbillike verhoor of tot nadeel sal strek vir die regspleging. Uit die bewoording van die artikel blyk dit dat die howe geen diskresie het ten opsigte van die toelaatbaarheidsvraag nie en 'n streng uitsluitingbenadering moet volg. Die doel van hierdie verha• ndeling is om ondersoek in te stel na die mate van diskresie .en die wyse ·waarop diskresie toepas word in hierdie besluitnemingsproses. Twee benaderings is deur die howe gevolg, naamlik 'n benadering waar 'n wye diskresie uitgeoefen word en 'n benadering waar 'n beperkte diskresie uitgeoefen word, dus 'n gekwalifiseerde uitsluitingsbenadering. Die skrywer doen aan die hand dat beide gronde vir uitsluiting van belang is en dat die howe verkeie faktore moet oorweeg ten einde 'n beslissing te vel oor die insluiting of uitsluiting van ongrondwetlike getuienis. 'n Balans moet dus gehandhaaf word tussen die belang van die beskuldigde op 'n billike verhoor en die belang van die gemeenskap daarin dat regspleging nie benadeel moet word nie en dat reg en geregtigheid moet geskied / Section 35(3) of the Constitution Act 108 of 1996 deals with the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence and stipulates that such evidence must be excluded if the admission would render the trial unfair or be detrimental to the administration of justice. From the wording of the section it seems that the courts have no jurisdiction in regard to the admissibility question and that a strict exclusionary approach must be followed. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the amount of discretion that the Courts have, and the manner in which this discretion is applied in the process of decision making. Two approaches were followed by the courts namely a wide discretionary approach and an approach where a strict discretion was applied. It is submitted that botR grounds for exclusion are of importance and that the courts must consider a variety of factors in deciding the question on the inclusion or exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence. A balance must be struck between the interest of the accused in a fair trial and the interest of the community that the administration of justice must not be prejudiced and that justice must prevail. / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL.M. (Law)

Increasing use is being made of various types of scientific evidence in court. The general requirement for the admissibility of such evidence is relevance. Although expert evidence is considered to be opinion evidence, it is admissible if it can assist the court to decide a fact in issue; provided that it is also reliable. In South Africa, the initial wide judicial discretion to either admit or exclude unconstitutionally obtained evidence, has developed into a more narrowly defined discretion under the final Constitution. Examples of scientific evidence, namely, DNA evidence, fingerprints, psychiatric evidence, bite-mark evidence and polygraph evidence are considered and problems inherent in the presentation of such evidence in courts in various jurisdictions are highlighted. An investigation of the presentation and evaluation of evidence in both the accusatorial and inquisitorial systems seems to indicate that the adversarial procedure has a marked influence on the evaluation of evidence / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL.M. (Law)

Selon une présentation classique, le droit du contentieux international est apprécié à travers les concepts de pouvoir de juger, de compétence et de recevabilité. Force est toutefois de constater qu’il est aujourd’hui souvent fait référence, dans les décisions des juridictions internationales comme dans la doctrine, à la faculté procédurale, notamment des personnes privées. Cet intérêt pour la situation du requérant et sa faculté d’obtenir une décision sur le fond de son différend interroge quant à une possible évolution des concepts juridiques régissant la matière. L’étude de ce « droit » d’action dans le cadre du contentieux des investissements permet de se rendre compte de l’utilité de la notion pour le droit du contentieux international. D’une part, une fois déployé, le concept réalise un ordonnancement efficace des règles déterminant la possibilité d’une décision sur le fond. La pratique arbitrale fait preuve à cet égard d’une certaine confusion entre ces règles et celles encadrant l’existence de l’obligation alléguée que l’étude permet de dissiper. D’autre part, le droit d’agir en justice permet plus généralement d’appréhender les effets juridiques du consentement de l’Etat à la juridiction. L’étude démontre en effet que la faculté procédurale procède de l’invocabilité de ce consentement : celui-ci reconnaît à l’entité visée par l’engagement le droit d’agir en justice. Or cet effet juridique ne peut être valablement saisi par le concept de pouvoir de juger, lequel procède de la réunion des consentements. Puisque le contentieux des investissements s’intéresse à plusieurs égards à cette invocabilité, soit pour la préserver soit pour la remettre en cause, on comprend que le droit d’agir soit devenu un concept incontournable en la matière. Mais la nécessité d’y recourir peut s’exporter au-delà du contentieux des investissements, n’importe quelle branche du contentieux international pouvant être intéressée à régir les effets juridiques du consentement du seul Etat défendeur. / The settlement of international disputes is classically studied thought the concepts of judicial power, jurisdiction and admissibility. However it is now common to find references to the notion of « right of action » or « right of claim » in decisions of international tribunals especially when individuals are involved. One might wonder whether this observation reveals an evolution in the concepts governing disputes settlement in international law. The study of the right of action in international investment law demonstrates the usefulness of the concept in explaining the applicable rules. First, as a key concept, it can be used to identify the rules that determine the possibility to obtain a decision of the tribunal as opposed to the rules governing the State’s responsibility. In practice, it appears that the tribunals do not always respect this distinction. Secondly, the right of action allows taking into account the legal consequences of the State’s consent to arbitration. In this case, the concept of judicial power is partly irrelevant as it is usually based on a consent agreement between the parties. It follows that the concept of right of action is relevant when the applicable rules deal with the possibility to invoke and to rely on the consent to jurisdiction expressed by the respondent State. The fact that it is the case in the settlement of disputes between a State and an investor does not mean that it can not be so in the context of a interstate dispute.

Le statut contentieux du droit administratif souple est très hétérogène. Les actes non décisoires sont soumis par le juge à des régimes juridiques assez variés : tandis que les circulaires administratives demeurent généralement indifférentes du point de vue contentieux (inopposables, ininvocables, insusceptibles de recours direct), les directives administratives et les mesures préparatoires peuvent être utilement invoquées en justice, et sont contrôlées par le juge de manière incidente, par la voie de l’exception d’illégalité. S’y ajoutent les actes tels que les « recommandations de bonnes pratiques médicales », ou les « cahiers des clauses administratives générales applicables aux marchés publics » (CCAG), qui peuvent faire l’objet d’un recours direct. La complexité de ce paysage contentieux ne semble pourtant pas irréductible. Certaines des distinctions pratiquées par la jurisprudence actuelle paraissent injustifiées, ce qui permet d’envisager l’harmonisation - ou la simplification - du régime juridique appliqué aux catégories existantes d’actes non décisoires. Tel est l’objectif principal de la présente thèse. / The litigation status of soft administrative law is very heterogeneous. The non-decisive acts are submitted by the judge to quite varied legal regimes: while the administrative circulars remain generally indifferent from the point of view of litigation (unenforceable, inviolable, insusceptible of direct appeal), the administrative directives and the preparatory measures can be usefully brought before the courts, and are under the control of the judge incidentally, by way of the plea of illegality. In addition, there are acts such as "recommendations for good medical practice", or "general contract terms and conditions applicable to public procurement" (CCAG), which may be the subject of a direct appeal.The complexity of this contentious landscape does not seem irreducible. Some of the distinctions made in the current case law seem unjustified, which allows for the harmonization - or simplification - of the legal regime applied to existing categories of non-decisive acts. This is the main objective of this thesis.

Les recours individuels directs devant la juridiction constitutionnelle sont marqués par une forte originalité. Leur originalité se caractérise tant par la possibilité qu’un individu puisse accéder sans intermédiaire au prétoire du juge constitutionnel, que par la diversité des actes contestables devant ce juge et par cet individu. Afin d’appréhender les diverses formes de recours individuel direct en Allemagne, Autriche, Belgique et Espagne, il convenait de mobiliser un instrument qui mette en évidence cette double spécificité d’études : le droit processuel. Celui-ci se définit en effet par l’ambition de traiter les divers contentieux de manière comparée, au-delà de leur nature particulière.Cette démarche comparative permet plus spécialement de relativiser le clivage droit privé/droit public : tandis que le droit processuel trouve habituellement son terrain d’élection dans le droit judiciaire privé, alors que le contentieux public est accaparé par la dimension du « procès fait à un acte », l’analyse des recours individuels directs permet d’appréhender pleinement le contentieux constitutionnel comme structure procédurale de protection des droits. Le droit processuel permet ainsi d’analyser les recours individuels directs comme forme entièrement développée de recours en protection des droit devant la juridiction constitutionnelle, forme qui n’existe pas en France : il permet une mise en perspective de notre culture juridique centrée sur la conformité juridique objective des actes. / Direct constitutional complaints before the Constitutional Court appear as a strongly original procedure. It is caracterized both by the possibility for an individual to have direct access to the Court and by the wide variety of the legal acts that can be challenged there. The analysis of the diverse forms of direct constitutional complaints in Austria, Belgium, Germany and Spain requires a conceptual framework that allows those two characteristics to stand out: processual law. Processual law can be defined by its ambition to consider various kinds of litigation in a comparative way beyond their specific nature. This comparative approach especially allows for a relativisation of the public law/private law distinction. In France, processual law is generally used in private litigation context, whereas public litigation is more focused on the “procès fait à un acte” dimension. By contrast, the analysis of direct constitutional complaints through processual law sheds a specific light on it as a procedural structure directed towards the protection of rights. In other words, direct constitutional complaints appear in this light as a fully developed form of procedure for the protection of rights, a form that does not exist in France. Our legal culture which is focused on the question of the objective legal conformity of acts is thus put into a new perspective.

Text in Afrikaans / Artikel 35(5) van die Grondwet 108 van 1996 handel oor die uitsluiting van ongrondwetlike getuienis en bepaal dat sodanige getuienis uitgesluit moet word indien toelating daarvan sal lei tot 'n onbillike verhoor of tot nadeel sal strek vir die regspleging. Uit die bewoording van die artikel blyk dit dat die howe geen diskresie het ten opsigte van die toelaatbaarheidsvraag nie en 'n streng uitsluitingbenadering moet volg. Die doel van hierdie verha• ndeling is om ondersoek in te stel na die mate van diskresie .en die wyse ·waarop diskresie toepas word in hierdie besluitnemingsproses. Twee benaderings is deur die howe gevolg, naamlik 'n benadering waar 'n wye diskresie uitgeoefen word en 'n benadering waar 'n beperkte diskresie uitgeoefen word, dus 'n gekwalifiseerde uitsluitingsbenadering. Die skrywer doen aan die hand dat beide gronde vir uitsluiting van belang is en dat die howe verkeie faktore moet oorweeg ten einde 'n beslissing te vel oor die insluiting of uitsluiting van ongrondwetlike getuienis. 'n Balans moet dus gehandhaaf word tussen die belang van die beskuldigde op 'n billike verhoor en die belang van die gemeenskap daarin dat regspleging nie benadeel moet word nie en dat reg en geregtigheid moet geskied / Section 35(3) of the Constitution Act 108 of 1996 deals with the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence and stipulates that such evidence must be excluded if the admission would render the trial unfair or be detrimental to the administration of justice. From the wording of the section it seems that the courts have no jurisdiction in regard to the admissibility question and that a strict exclusionary approach must be followed. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the amount of discretion that the Courts have, and the manner in which this discretion is applied in the process of decision making. Two approaches were followed by the courts namely a wide discretionary approach and an approach where a strict discretion was applied. It is submitted that botR grounds for exclusion are of importance and that the courts must consider a variety of factors in deciding the question on the inclusion or exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence. A balance must be struck between the interest of the accused in a fair trial and the interest of the community that the administration of justice must not be prejudiced and that justice must prevail. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M. (Law)