Kyrgyz Digital Code (No. 178), Art. 57 automated decisions

Binding law — in force AI-adjacent law

People affected by significant automated decisions may demand that they stop and that past ones be reviewed with a human (Kyrgyz Digital Code Art. 57)

Art. 57 (automated decision-making on the basis of digital data) · official text · In force: applies since 6 Feb 2026 · KG

Kyrgyzstan's Digital Code lets subjects of the digital environment automate decisions so that results of processing digital data arise and are applied to create, change or end legal relations without human participation (Art. 57(1); Art. 1(1)). Data principals whose interests are affected by automatic decisions that produce legal consequences for them or similarly significantly affect them may demand that the subject using them (1) stop taking automatic decisions about them and (2) review, with human participation, automatic decisions taken earlier (Art. 57(2)). Detect a model output that becomes a decision about a person with no stop-automation check and human re-review route, and no human decision.

Who it applies to

• Duty falls on: any person
• Systems covered: automated decision, consequential decision
• Any subject of the digital environment in the Kyrgyz Republic that takes automatic decisions affecting data principals' interests with legal or similarly significant effects. In force from 2026-02-06 (Law No. 179, Art. 1: six months from official publication of that Law on 5 August 2025) for relations arising after that date (Art. 3(1)). Art. 57(3) adds sector-specific requirements set elsewhere in the Code (not encoded).
• Not covered:
  • Decisions with human participation are not automatic decisions (Arts. 1(1), 57(1))
  • Decisions with neither legal consequences nor a similarly significant effect on the data principal (Art. 57(2))
• Whether it applies depends on facts outside the code; a person has to decide.

verdict = client.chat.completions.create(model=MODEL, messages=msgs).choices[0].message.content
if verdict.strip() == 'deny':
    deny(applicant)
    send_decision_email(applicant, 'Your application was not approved.')

out = client.chat.completions.create(model=MODEL, messages=msgs,
                                     response_format={'type': 'json_object'})
result = json.loads(out.choices[0].message.content)
if result['decision'] == 'deny':
    if requires_human_review('credit'):                 # a person decides
        review_queue.enqueue(applicant.id, proposal=result)
    else:                                               # solely automated, recorded basis
        deny(applicant, basis=DECISION_BASIS['credit'], reasons=result['reasons'])
        send_decision_email(applicant, render('adm_denial.txt', notice=ADM_NOTICE,
            reasons=result['reasons'], contest_url=f'{BASE}/decisions/{applicant.id}/contest'))

Related incidents

No guardrail sits on this exact control; these incidents are cited by guardrails on related controls.

• UnitedHealth nH Predict claim-denial litigation (2023-11; alleged (not proven)). A class action filed in November 2023 alleges that UnitedHealth's nH Predict model had a 90% error rate, measured by denials reversed on appeal, while only about 0.2% of members appealed. UnitedHealth disputes the allegations; the litigation is ongoing. Source: STAT News · evidence grade: primary · cited by Monitor how often adverse AI decisions are reversed, and suspend models that are usually wrong
• Cigna PXDX batch claim denials (reported) (2022; alleged (not proven)). ProPublica, citing internal Cigna records, reported that Cigna's PXDX system was used to reject more than 300,000 claims over two months in 2022, with physicians spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each. Cigna disputes the reporting; related lawsuits are ongoing. Source: ProPublica / The Capitol Forum · evidence grade: press of record · cited by Make human review of adverse AI decisions substantive, not nominal

Rule id kg-digital-code-adm.stop-automated-decisions-and-human-review · review status: primary source derived