The right to an explanation of algorithmic decision-making in the digital human rights system

This article is devoted to researching the concept of the human right to an explanation of decisions made using artificial intelligence algorithms. The active introduction of automated systems into areas such as education, social security, financial services, justice, and public administration has led to artificial intelligence technologies having a significant impact on the legal status of individuals. As a result, there is a need to develop new approaches to guaranteeing and protecting human rights that would prevent discrimination, bias, and opacity in decision-making by such systems. The article examines groups of errors that may arise during the application of automated decision- making by judicial authorities: technical, social, and errors related to the absence or incomprehensibility of explanations. It analyzes the prerequisites for the emergence of the concept of the right to explanations of algorithmic decisions, its connection with the theory of the «black box» of artificial intelligence and understandable artificial intelligence. The main types of explanations that guarantee this right are revealed: specific and general, causal and normative, ex ante explanations and ex post explanations. The approaches to defining the purpose of the right to explanation are analyzed: the protection of a specific benefit, which may be transparency in decision-making, trust in the state, public authorities, or private operators, or the right to self-defense as such. The European approach to recognizing and regulating this right was examined through the prism of the General Data Protection Regulation and the Artificial Intelligence Act. Based on an analysis of the provisions of the relevant acts, the main elements that are systematically interrelated and together constitute the right to an explanation of automated decisions were identified. These components include: a)the right of a person to know about the use of artificial intelligence technologies in the process of making a decision that is significant to them; b) the right to a meaningful and understandable explanation of the decision made; c) the right to be informed about the legal consequences of this decision; d) the right to appeal it and demand human intervention in the relevant process.