Neurotechnology: UN Secretary-General Urges Ban on Coercive Use of Brain Technologies in Justice Systems

Summary

On 15 October 2026, the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Claudia Fuentes Julio, presented to the Third Committee of the General Assembly a report of the Secretary-General on human rights in the administration of justice (A/81/351). The report, dated 27 August 2026, examines the growing use of neurotechnology in justice systems and the risks arising from its convergence with artificial intelligence.

According to UN News, Ms. Fuentes Julio said the report "warns of risks to dignity, privacy, freedom of thought, fair trial rights, liberty and protection from ill-treatment, especially for marginalised groups," and calls for "prohibitions on coercive and abusive uses, and stronger safeguards, informed consent, scientific validation, oversight, accountability and protection of neural data." This report summarises the Secretary-General's findings, his recommendations to Member States, the differing views noted in the report and the relevant international standards.

Background: The Report and Its Mandate

The report was submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution 79/172, in which the Assembly requested information on the latest developments, risks and required safeguards regarding the potential use of neurotechnology and other emerging technologies in the administration of justice. It draws on submissions from Member States, United Nations entities, human rights mechanisms and civil society received through an OHCHR call for input.

The report defines neurotechnology, following the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology adopted in November 2025, as devices, systems and procedures that directly measure, access, monitor, analyse, predict or modulate the nervous system. It notes that devices once confined to clinical or research settings are now entering, or may enter, consumer markets, workplaces, schools, public services, law enforcement and justice systems.

According to the UN transcript of the Committee's 16th meeting, the report was one of 17 reports introduced by Ms. Fuentes Julio in a single briefing. Delegations that spoke in the interactive dialogue that followed focused on other reports introduced in the same briefing.

Current and Emerging Uses in Justice Systems

The report states that the most common current use is neuroimaging offered as medical or expert evidence, for example to support mitigation at sentencing or claims about capacity, and that courts generally treat such material as corroborative rather than determinative. It cites practice in Brazil, the Netherlands, the United States, Italy, England and Wales, and Canada.

Brain based deception detection is described as less common. The report states that no such method has achieved general acceptance for courtroom use. It cites a 2012 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in United States v. Semrau, which excluded functional magnetic resonance imaging lie detection evidence as insufficiently reliable, and the 2010 judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Selvi v. State of Karnataka, which held that involuntary brain electrical oscillation signature profiling violates the constitutional protection against self incrimination.

The report describes predictive tools, thought "decoding" in interrogations, wearable monitoring of offenders and neurostimulation as largely experimental or anticipated applications. It states that neurotechnology is not capable at present of reading minds but is reportedly able to infer emotions and internal reactions from neural data.

Human Rights Concerns Identified

In the report, the Secretary-General writes: "Neurotechnology accesses, measures and analyses brain signals. If these signals are treated as direct indicators of thoughts, intentions or truthfulness, the use of neural data points could undermine how we understand and value each of us as human beings."

The report identifies risks to human dignity, freedom of thought and opinion, privacy, fair trial guarantees including the presumption of innocence and protection against self incrimination, and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. It raises concerns about reliability, noting that brain data are complex and probabilistic and that findings at the group level may not translate into conclusions about individuals.

It also warns that wearable electroencephalography devices marketed for wellness, gaming or productivity are widely available, and that the data they collect may reportedly be accessed by State authorities or introduced as evidence without recognition of its sensitive character, a risk it describes as amplified in counter-terrorism and national security contexts.

Recommendations to Member States

The report makes ten recommendations. Among them, the Secretary-General recommends that States prohibit the compulsory or coercive use of neurotechnologies in the administration of justice, including brain based deception detection, predictive applications, decoding applications and arbitrary or unlawful cognitive surveillance; prohibit the use of neurotechnology as a means of torture or ill-treatment; and bar neural data obtained through such treatment from use as evidence.

He further recommends that States recognise neural data as highly sensitive personal data subject to the highest level of legal protection, require free, prior, informed, explicit and revocable consent for any use in justice settings, and require rigorous independent scientific validation of any neurotechnology derived evidence offered in court. Other recommendations address regulatory frameworks and human rights impact assessments, safeguards for children, detainees, persons with disabilities and other groups, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, business responsibilities and training for police, prosecutors, judges and defence counsel.

Differing Perspectives and Potential Benefits

The report acknowledges that neurotechnology holds significant promise, particularly in medicine, noting that brain-computer interfaces already aid movement, communication and recovery in neurorehabilitation. It also records a debate: some contend that the challenges of neurotechnology may require new legal frameworks, while others affirm that the risks can be addressed within existing international human rights law through further interpretation by UN mechanisms. The report concludes that existing law provides an applicable framework but that further clarification is needed.

Inside BCI, a publication covering brain-computer interface policy, noted on 11 October 2026 that the recommendations do not bind governments and carry no timetable.

Developments in National and Regional Regulation

The report describes national regulation as nascent and uneven. It cites Chile's 2021 constitutional amendment protecting brain activity and a 2023 ruling of the Supreme Court of Chile applying it, a proposed neurorights law in Mexico, the classification of neural data as sensitive personal data in Brazil, the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act, and laws in California, Colorado and Montana extending sensitive data protections to neural data. It notes that the Human Rights Council has tasked its Advisory Committee with drafting guidelines for its sixty-fourth session, and that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime and INTERPOL began a collaboration in 2025 on neurotechnology in law enforcement.

Relevant International Standards

The report locates the governing framework in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including article 14 on fair trial, article 17 on privacy and article 18 on freedom of thought, from which no derogation is permitted. It also refers to the Convention against Torture, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Taskforce Note

The Global HR Taskforce will continue to monitor developments, including any General Assembly action on the recommendations, the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee's draft guidelines and further national legislation on neural data. Sources: Report of the Secretary-General, "Human rights in the administration of justice," A/81/351, 27 August 2026; UN News, "Could your brain data be used against you? UN calls for limits on neurotechnology," 15 October 2026; UN transcript, Third Committee, 16th meeting, 81st session, 15 October 2026; Inside BCI, "UN Secretary-General recommends banning coercive use of neurotechnology in justice systems," 11 October 2026; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology (2025).