Regulation Tracker · 20 questions
Guidance or rules governing how judges, tribunal members and court staff may use AI in their own work.
As of 2026-09-04, 10 of 130 countries and entities have a binding rule for judges' use of AI, 22 have official guidance, 6 have a proposal, 1 are set by case law, 77 were checked with nothing found and 14 remain unclear. Binding countries: Brazil, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Nepal, Philippines, Spain.
Tap or hover a country. Faint land has no record yet. Miller projection; boundaries as published by Natural Earth (India point of view) — see the disclaimer.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
CNJ Resolution 615/2025, approved 11 March 2025 and in force 14 July 2025, governs judges' and staff use of AI including generative models, with mandatory human supervision, risk classification and a National AI Committee. It replaces Resolution 332/2020 of 21 August 2020.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Supreme People's Court Opinions of 8 December 2022: AI output is reference only, judges remain fully accountable, users may decline AI assistance, and security, lawfulness, fairness and transparency principles apply. The Opinions set targets of integrated AI support by 2025 and a full framework by 2030.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 of 16 December 2024 applies to all judges and employees: no free or commercial chatbots, no AI for evidence assessment or deciding, human verification of every output, and express disclosure in the file of tool, model, date, purpose and prompts. It was issued to comply with judgment T-323/2024.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Regional rather than national. The Kerala High Court policy of 19 July 2025 and the Gujarat High Court policy of April 2026 bind district judiciaries: AI only for research and administration through approved tools, never for findings, orders, bail or sentencing. Punjab and Haryana bans AI outright for judicial officers.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Narrow instrument only. Letter No. 112/WKMA.Y/HK2.1/IX/2026 of 2 September 2026 bars circulating draft judgment-writing materials outside the working team, including by uploading them to document-processing and artificial-intelligence services. No general SEMA or PERMA on judicial AI use was found.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
Courts Administration Procedure 01-26, 'Ethical Code for Using AI Tools in the Judicial Authority', issued by Director Tzachi Uziel on 26 Mar 2026, drafted by a team under Judge Rami Khaimowitz and approved by Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit. Applies to judges, registrars and court staff; conditions use on training.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Law 132/2025 article 15(1): in any use of AI in judicial activity, every decision on interpretation and application of the law, assessment of facts and evidence, and adoption of measures is always reserved to the magistrate. Article 15(4) tasks the Minister of Justice with AI training for magistrates and court staff.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Judiciary ICT Policy 2083, strategy 5.2 and 5.2.1: AI-based systems are to support drafting and research in judicial work, but AI shall not be used in a way that directly intrudes on judicial decisions. The policy was adopted by the Supreme Court full bench.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Canon VI, Section 6 of the CJCA governs the ethical use of technology and AI; the Framework provides that AI is an aid that must never substitute the judge's own discernment and discretion, especially in writing decisions and resolutions.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
CGPJ Instruccion 2/2026, agreed by the Pleno on 28 January 2026 and published in the state gazette on 30 January, binds judges and magistrates: effective human control, no autonomous decision-making, no unapproved tools except for study with open-source material and no judicial data, full personal responsibility, CGPJ supervision and training.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
There is no national rule. Provincial protocols bind their own judiciaries: the Rio Negro generative-AI good-practice protocol of October 2024, Santa Fe Circular 25 of 4 April 2025 for judges and defenders given generative-AI access, and Jujuy Acordada 31/2025 of 11 April 2025 with its protocol and authorisation form.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The Chief Justice of NSW issued Guidelines for New South Wales Judges on 21 November 2024, applying to all NSW courts. Victoria's Supreme Court issued judicial guidelines on 14 May 2026 and Queensland Courts publish guidelines for judicial officers. All require verification and bar entry of case material into public tools.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The Canadian Judicial Council's Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts (September 2024) apply to federally appointed judges: judges may never delegate decision-making, and use must respect judicial independence, ethics, safety, transparency and ongoing education. The Superior Court of Quebec adopted its own governance framework in September 2025.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The Judicial Ethics Code, Acta 244-2025, approved at the October 2025 reflection sessions and published on 19 November 2025, article 17: AI is a support tool only; judges must verify any AI result, control data shared with external platforms, and never automatically incorporate AI text. The Code is expressly ethical, not disciplinary.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No Croatian judicial guidance exists; the Croatian Bar published the CEPEJ generative-AI guidelines for courts on 11 March 2026 as the applicable reference. The anonymisation Rulebook keeps the judge responsible for additional anonymisation beyond the ANON proposal.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
CEPEJ Guidelines CEPEJ(2025)18Final (19 Dec 2025) govern generative AI use by courts and tribunals across 46 Council of Europe states, including all EU members. The CJEU adopted an AI Strategy (19 June 2023) and an AI Ethics Charter (26 Jan 2026) for its own judicial-support tools.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Conseil d'État charter of 11 Dec 2025 applies to every member, magistrate and staff member of the Conseil d'État, administrative courts of appeal, tribunaux administratifs, the CNDA and the Tribunal du stationnement payant. Seven principles; access to public chatbots is deliberately not blocked but is tightly conditioned. No equivalent charter for the ordre judiciaire yet — the Ministry of Justice says one is in preparation.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI for Judges, Judicial Officers and Support Staff (July 2024) permit administrative and drafting-assistance uses with human review, forbid entering confidential or sensitive case material into public tools, and make the judicial officer responsible for all output used.
International bodies · verified 2026-09-04
Two global reference texts: the CEPEJ Guidelines on generative AI for courts, adopted 5 December 2025 for 46 Council of Europe states, and the UNESCO Guidelines for the use of AI systems in courts and tribunals of 3 December 2025. Both sit on the 2018 CEPEJ Ethical Charter and CCJE Opinion No. 26.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Judicial Council of Ireland, 'Guidelines for Judges: The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence', dated June 2024 and published November 2025 as a living document: routine and administrative tasks only, verify all output, no confidential case material in public tools.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No federal guideline for judges. The Judiciary of Sabah and Sarawak operates AI for Data Sentencing, launched 18 January 2020 and first used on 19 February 2020 at the Kota Kinabalu Magistrates' Court, on the stated basis that AI does not displace the role of judges.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The Raad voor de rechtspraak's published AI strategy (from early 2025) sets a ten-point plan: focus on low-risk applications, 'learning-by-doing', an afwegingskader protecting judicial autonomy and art. 6 ECHR, independent oversight of that framework, and a public algorithm/AI register. Deployment of AI in high-risk processes stays excluded. RechtspraakGPT (released 10 Dec 2025) is limited to text tasks outside the primary process. The strategy followed criticism of Rechtbank Gelderland, 7 Jun 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636), where a kantonrechter used ChatGPT to estimate the lifespan of solar panels and the average kWh price in assessing damages.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
A dedicated judicial version applies to all judges, judicial officers, tribunal members and support staff. Seven principles: understand limitations; uphold confidentiality and suppression; ensure accuracy; address bias, including Maori and Pasifika cultural context; maintain security; disclosure; and watch for others' AI use.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
NJPMC National Guidelines for the Use of AI in Judicial Institutions, approved at the 57th meeting on 29 April 2026: AI is to assist, not replace, judges; permitted for case management, legal research, predictive analytics and document processing, with data-protection and training safeguards. High Courts retain implementation autonomy. The official text is not online.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
CSM Recommendations on the use of AI in judicial activity, approved by the Plenario on 8 April 2026: ten principles covering effective human control, non-substitution, judicial responsibility, independence, confidentiality, bias prevention, proportionality, training and transparency; only systems supplied by the case-management system or the CSM may be used.
The Ministry of Justice’s April training page says judicial operators received tools and guidance/perspectives on responsible AI in justice-sector contexts, based on UNESCO’s AI and Rule of Law toolkit. No binding court rule was located.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The AI Guidebook for Judges sets standards and about twenty graded examples for using commercial AI in trial and administrative work while judicial responsibility and impartiality are preserved. It was drafted by a task force of eight judges formed in October 2025. The official press release is not retrievable.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Domstolsverket has internal guidelines for court staff and judges on using public AI tools: classified information must never be entered, and nothing about an undelivered judgment may be shared. Not published as a public practice direction.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The Judicial Yuan Reference Guidelines of 22 April 2026, chapter 2, govern user conduct. Earlier Judicial Yuan statements of August 2023 committed to follow the Executive Yuan generative-AI guidelines and to develop court-specific rules.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Judiciary AI guidance for judicial office holders, v3 dated 31 October 2025. Issued for the courts and tribunals of England and Wales; the position for the Scottish and Northern Ireland judiciaries was not verified in this pass.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The Administrative Office's AI Task Force issued interim guidance judiciary-wide on 31 July 2025 (not published in full). It directs judiciary users to review and independently verify AI output, cautions against delegating core judicial functions, and asks courts to define approved tasks and tools.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
A Supreme People's Court training conference on 20 January 2026 set the operating principle that AI does not replace judges, and that humans bear final responsibility for all results. This is a policy statement, not a published regulation.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The Ethics Committee protocol of 16 June 2026, drafted with the Judiciary Council, National Court, Prosecutor General and Public Defender, sets 23 principles, five common directives and actor-specific rules; judges may not motivate rulings with algorithms or assess credibility via AI. A formal resolution is pending.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
The Judiciary announced on 11 Aug 2025 that it is developing a Judiciary Artificial Intelligence Adoption Policy Framework to guide AI in judicial operations while safeguarding judicial independence, data privacy and due process. Draft policy and practice directions went to public participation in May 2026; nothing is in force.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
The CSPJ and UNESCO's Maghreb Office held the region's first consultation on UNESCO's guidelines for AI use in courts and tribunals in Rabat on 22 September 2025, under the principle that an AI cannot decide or judge. No Moroccan judicial guidance has been adopted.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Domstoladministrasjonen completed risk analyses for Microsoft 365 Copilot in the courts and was finalising staff guidelines in 2025; AI is used for summarisation and structuring, not decision support. No published judicial AI policy located as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
The Office of the Chief Justice released a Draft Policy on Artificial Intelligence for the Judiciary for comment in April 2026. Resolution 5.2 of the 2026 Judiciary Conference (Umhlanga, 13–16 July 2026) directs the Judiciary Administration and Information Technology Steering Committee to finalise it for adoption.
The AI White Paper programme says guidelines for courts are being developed during the preparatory soft-law stage. No issued Ukrainian judicial AI guidance was located.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
Criteria of the Second Collegiate Court in Civil Matters of the Second Circuit, published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación on 22 August 2025, accept AI as a support tool in adjudication subject to self-restraint, proportionality and non-harm, data protection, transparency and explainability, and human judicial supervision. No SCJN or Órgano de Administración Judicial guidelines exist.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. Bahraini judges and prosecutors attended UNESCO's Arab-region AI and Rule of Law training in Doha (8-11 December 2024), but the Supreme Judicial Council has issued no guidance on judges' use of AI.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No Supreme Court policy on judges' AI use found as of 4 September 2026; The Daily Star and The Business Standard have argued that Bangladesh needs a courtroom AI policy soon.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No Corte Plena or Superior Council guideline for judges' use of AI was found; the judiciary cites the UNESCO 2021 recommendation as its evaluation framework. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The Supreme Court began a focal-group study of AI tools in October 2025 stressing ethics and fundamental rights, but no policy has been adopted. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The National AI Strategy lists automated legal research and legal drafting assistance for judges as a target use case, but no judiciary rule or guidance on judges' use of AI exists.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Neither Riigikohus nor the kohus.ee courts portal publishes guidance for judges or court staff on generative AI as of 4 September 2026. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Estonia as a Council of Europe state but is non-binding.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
No Judicial Service policy or Chief Justice practice direction on AI was found. Checked judicial.gov.gh 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No judicial guidance on judges' use of AI found as of 4 September 2026; the CEPEJ guidelines are the only applicable reference.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Dómstólasýslan has published no guidance for judges or court staff on generative AI as of 4 September 2026. CEPEJ(2025)18Final reaches Iceland as a Council of Europe member state but is non-binding and has no Icelandic implementing instrument.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No published rule for judges' use of generative AI; the Supreme Court states that AI is not currently used in trials. A six-judge study group at the Tokyo and Osaka District Courts worked in early 2026 on the premise that AI will not enter judges' decision-making.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No guidance from the Supreme Judicial Council or the Ministry of Justice on judges' or court staff's use of AI was located.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Neither the Court Administration nor the Supreme Court publishes guidance for judges or court staff on generative AI as of 4 September 2026. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Latvia as a Council of Europe state but is non-binding.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The National Courts Administration publishes no guidance for judges or court staff on generative AI as of 4 September 2026. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Lithuania as a Council of Europe state but is non-binding.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No judicial guidance on judges' use of AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
CNIA membership includes Supreme Court and Public Prosecutor representatives, but no judicial AI-use guidance or court rule was located.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
No guidance for judges or court staff. The Chief Justice of Nigeria urged responsible adoption of AI at the NBA Annual General Conference (24 Aug 2026) but issued no rule or policy.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No Supreme Court acuerdo or guideline for judges' use of AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The judiciary confirmed in 2024 that it had issued no AI guidance for judges, and as of August 2026 its Digital Transformation Committee was still expected to approve AI-use policies. No rule or guidance is in force as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No guidance for judges on generative AI found. The Ministry of Justice runs proof-of-concept AI pilots and states AI will not replace judges, but has published no judicial use policy as of 4 September 2026.
No Puerto Rico Supreme Court or District of Puerto Rico AI-use guidance for judges was found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No published guidance on judges' or court staff's use of AI. In June 2026 UNESCO and the Supreme Judiciary Council ran a four-day AI and rule-of-law training for 34 judges and senior legal officials, but no rule followed.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No published guidance for judges or court staff on using AI as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No judicial guidance found as of 4 September 2026. The Ministry of Justice sent an information letter on the AI Act in October 2024 to the Constitutional and Supreme Courts, prosecution, bar and notaries; it is informational rather than guidance. Judicial AI tools are not yet implemented.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. Neither the Council of Judges and Prosecutors nor the Ministry of Justice has published a circular (genelge) or ethics instrument on judges' use of AI; the Turkish Judicial Ethics Declaration does not address it.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No published guidance for judges or court staff in the onshore courts, DIFC or ADGM as of 4 September 2026. The AI judicial platform announced on 28 July 2026 is described as leaving final judgments to judges, but no rule has been published.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No Supreme Court acordada on AI was identified in the national report to the XXVIII Ibero-American Procedural Law Conference of April 2025. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — no guidance from the Austrian judiciary or the Federal Ministry of Justice on judges using generative AI was located before the search budget was exhausted. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies as Council of Europe soft law.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not fully checked — no guidance from the College van de hoven en rechtbanken, the Hoge Raad voor de Justitie or the Institute for Judicial Training was located before the search budget was exhausted. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies as Council of Europe soft law.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No judicial AI guidance was located; the Supreme Court and e-justice sites were not checked because the research budget was exhausted.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No Ministerstvo spravedlnosti, Nejvyšší soud or Ústavní soud guideline on judges' use of generative AI could be checked; usoud.cz refused connection during this session.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No published Domstolsstyrelsen guideline for judges' use of generative AI found. LOV nr 467/2025 splits supervision: Domstolsstyrelsen for courts' non-judicial AI use, the individual court for AI used in its judicial capacity — a structure designed to protect judicial independence.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No published Tuomioistuinvirasto or Ministry of Justice guidance on judges' and court staff use of generative AI could be located; the agency's site carries no AI section and ministry pages were unreachable during research. Position not determined.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No federal or Land-level published guidance for judges on generative AI was located before the search budget ran out; German court AI work sits mainly in Land pilot projects. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Germany as a Council of Europe member. Treat as not fully checked rather than confirmed empty.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The Kúria homepage was checked on 4 September 2026 and carried no AI item; birosag.hu (OBH) returned HTTP 403. No judiciary AI guidance confirmed either way.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — no guidance from the Luxembourg judiciary located before the search budget was exhausted. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies as Council of Europe soft law.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The CSM homepage was checked on 4 September 2026 and showed no AI item, but deeper sections (hotărâri, digitalisation commission) could not be searched. No judiciary AI guidance confirmed either way.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Not established. The 2024 Registrar's Circular is addressed to court users, not judges, and no separate Singapore judiciary guidance for judges or court staff was located before the session search budget was exhausted.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — no Ministerstvo spravodlivosti or Najvyšší súd guideline on judges' use of generative AI could be checked without search access.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — no Federal Supreme Court or cantonal judiciary guidance on generative AI was located before the search budget was exhausted. Switzerland is a Council of Europe member, so CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies as soft law.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Not substantiated. No judicial AI-use guidance was found on reachable Courts of Justice pages; oja.coj.go.th and library.coj.go.th were unreachable.
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Judges' use of AI" by country, https://safelegalai.com/regulation/category/judicial-use (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
SafeLegalAI is a research publication by Cognesio LLP, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Israel
Italy
Nepal
Philippines
Spain
Argentina
Australia
Canada
Chile
Croatia
European Union
France
Hong Kong SAR
International bodies
Ireland
Malaysia
Netherlands
New Zealand
Pakistan
Portugal
Rwanda
South Korea
Sweden
Taiwan
United Kingdom
United States
Vietnam
Ecuador
Kenya
Morocco
Norway
South Africa
Ukraine
Mexico
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belarus
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brunei
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Cameroon
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Honduras
Iceland
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lithuania
Macao
Malta
Mauritius
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nicaragua
Nigeria
North Macedonia
Oman
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Poland
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Slovenia
Sri Lanka
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Türkiye
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Austria
Belgium
Cyprus
Czechia
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Hungary
Luxembourg
Romania
Singapore
Slovakia
Switzerland
Thailand