Automated Decision-Making Systems (ADS) have become pervasive across various fields, activities, and occupations, to enhance performance. However, this widespread adoption introduces potential risks, including the misuse of ADS. Such misuse may manifest when ADS is employed in situations where it is unnecessary or when essential requirements, conditions, and terms are overlooked, leading to unintended consequences. This research paper presents a thorough examination of the implications, distinctions, and ethical considerations associated with digitalization, digital transformation, and the utilization of ADS in contemporary society and future contexts. Emphasis is placed on the imperative need for regulation, transparency, and ethical conduct in the deployment of ADS.

Following on from the publication of its Feasibility Study in December 2020, the Council of Europe's Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAHAI) and its subgroups initiated efforts to formulate and draft its Possible Elements of a Legal Framework on Artificial Intelligence, based on the Council of Europe's standards on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. This document was ultimately adopted by the CAHAI plenary in December 2021. To support this effort, The Alan Turing Institute undertook a programme of research that explored the governance processes and practical tools needed to operationalise the integration of human right due diligence with the assurance of trustworthy AI innovation practices. The resulting framework was completed and submitted to the Council of Europe in September 2021. It presents an end-to-end approach to the assurance of AI project lifecycles that integrates context-based risk analysis and appropriate stakeholder engagement with comprehensive impact assessment, and transparent risk management, impact mitigation, and innovation assurance practices. Taken together, these interlocking processes constitute a Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law Assurance Framework (HUDERAF). The HUDERAF combines the procedural requirements for principles-based human rights due diligence with the governance mechanisms needed to set up technical and socio-technical guardrails for responsible and trustworthy AI innovation practices. Its purpose is to provide an accessible and user-friendly set of mechanisms for facilitating compliance with a binding legal framework on artificial intelligence, based on the Council of Europe's standards on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, and to ensure that AI innovation projects are carried out with appropriate levels of public accountability, transparency, and democratic governance.

The European Union (EU) through the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (AI-HLEG) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has recently posed an interesting challenge to the eXplainable AI (XAI) community, by demanding a more user-centred approach to explain Automated Decision-Making systems (ADMs). Looking at the relevant literature, XAI is currently focused on producing explainable software and explanations that generally follow an approach we could term One-Size-Fits-All, that is unable to meet a requirement of centring on user needs. One of the causes of this limit is the belief that making things explainable alone is enough to have pragmatic explanations. Thus, insisting on a clear separation between explainabilty (something that can be explained) and explanations, we point to explanatorY AI (YAI) as an alternative and more powerful approach to win the AI-HLEG challenge. YAI builds over XAI with the goal to collect and organize explainable information, articulating it into something we called user-centred explanatory discourses. Through the use of explanatory discourses/narratives we represent the problem of generating explanations for Automated Decision-Making systems (ADMs) into the identification of an appropriate path over an explanatory space, allowing explainees to interactively explore it and produce the explanation best suited to their needs.