The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective
Open accessAbstract
Recent advances in Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning provide us with the tools to build predictive models that can be used to unveil patterns driving judicial decisions. This can be useful, for both lawyers and judges, as an assisting tool to rapidly identify cases and extract patterns which lead to certain decisions. This paper presents the first systematic study on predicting the outcome of cases tried by the European Court of Human Rights based solely on textual content. We formulate a binary classification task where the input of our classifiers is the textual content extracted from a case and the target output is the actual judgment as to whether there has been a violation of an article of the convention of human rights. Textual information is represented using contiguous word sequences, i.e., N-grams, and topics. Our models can predict the court’s decisions with a strong accuracy (79% on average). Our empirical analysis indicates that the formal facts of a case are the most important predictive factor. This is consistent with the theory of legal realism suggesting that judicial decision-making is significantly affected by the stimulus of the facts. We also observe that the topical content of a case is another important feature in this classification task and explore this relationship further by conducting a qualitative analysis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A vector space model for automatic indexing
Salton, G., Wong, A., & Yang, C. S. (1975) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/361219.361220 · Cited by 7,521
Studying user income through language, behaviour and affect in social media
Preoţiuc-Pietro, D., Volkova, S., Lampos, V., Bachrach, Y., & Aletras, N. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138717 · Cited by 219
Self-citation
Cited by
A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States
Katz, D. M., Bommarito, M. J., & Blackman, J. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174698 · Cited by 528
Artificial Intelligence in Society
OECD (2019) · doi:10.1787/eedfee77-en · Cited by 487
Using machine learning to predict decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
Medvedeva, M., Vols, M., & Wieling, M. (2020) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/s10506-019-09255-y · Cited by 429
How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligence
Zhong, H., Xiao, C., Tu, C., Zhang, T., Liu, Z., & Sun, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.466 · Cited by 367
Neural Legal Judgment Prediction in English
Chalkidis, I., Androutsopoulos, I., & Aletras, N. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1424 · Cited by 352
Metadata
- Authors
- Aletras, N., Tsarapatsanis, D., Preoţiuc-Pietro, D., & Lampos, V.
- Venue
- PeerJ Computer Science
- Publisher
- PeerJ
- Published
- 2016-10-24
- Volume
- 2
- Pages
- e93
- ISSN
- 2376-5992 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2536769020
- Cited by
- 810
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 211.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7717/peerj-cs.93
- The paper
- Aletras, N., Tsarapatsanis, D., Preoţiuc-Pietro, D., & Lampos, V. (2016). Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.93
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.