A structured discussion guide that helps a public organisation decide whether and how to use an algorithm, with a step-by-step check of its effects on fundamental rights.
| Full name | Impact Assessment Mensenrechten en Algoritmes (Fundamental Rights and Algorithms Impact Assessment) |
| Website | https:// |
| Developed by | Utrecht University (Utrecht Data School), Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (commissioning ministry) (2021) |
| Type | Assessment: Question-based assessment document (PDF) with an explanatory guide |
| Lifecycle phase | Design, Deployment |
| FUTURE-AI | Fairness, Traceability, General recommendations |
| For | Policy makers and managers, AI developers, Healthcare professionals |
| Facilitation | Facilitator recommended |
| Skills needed | none; legal input needed for the fundamental rights part |
| Cost | Free |
| Languages | Dutch, English |
| Maturity | Established |
| Licence | No licence stated in the document; Rijksoverheid.nl offers its website content under CC0 |
What it is¶
The IAMA is a long list of questions that a multidisciplinary team works through together before building, buying or using an algorithm. It moves from why you want the system, to the data and the model, to how it will be used, and ends with a dedicated part on fundamental rights where you weigh any interference against its purpose. The answers form a written record of the choices you made. The second version (February 2026) is shorter, comes with a separate explanatory document, and flags the questions that relate to the fundamental rights impact assessment required by Article 27 of the EU AI Act for certain deployers of high-risk AI systems. The current version is in Dutch; an English translation (FRAIA) exists for the first version.
In healthcare¶
The IAMA was written for Dutch government bodies, not for health care, but its fundamental rights part is a useful way for a hospital to think through the effects of a clinical AI tool on patients. The AI Act’s Article 27 duty only covers high-risk systems listed in Annex III, such as systems that decide on eligibility for healthcare services or triage emergency patients. Most clinical AI is high-risk because it is a medical device (Annex I), and then Article 27 does not apply; the IAMA can still serve as a voluntary check.
Where to use it in The ELSA Way¶
Legal and regulatory considerations › Country-specific frameworks: The IAMA is the Dutch government’s standard instrument for checking an algorithm against fundamental rights, and shows what a national framework expects in practice.
Legal and regulatory considerations › The EU AI Act: If your system falls under Annex III, for example emergency triage, version 2 marks the questions that map onto the AI Act’s fundamental rights impact assessment that deployers must complete before first use.
References¶
Gerards J, Schäfer MT, Vankan A, Muis I. Fundamental Rights and Algorithms Impact Assessment (FRAIA). Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations; 2022 (English translation of IAMA version 1). https://
www .government .nl /documents /reports /2021 /07 /31 /impact -assessment -fundamental -rights -and -algorithms
Related tools¶
AI Impact Assessment: A question set that walks a multidisciplinary team through the purpose, impact, technical design, data and risks of an AI system, and records the decision whether to use it.
Algoritmekader: A Dutch government website that brings together the legal requirements, recommended measures and supporting tools for responsible use of algorithms and AI, organised by lifecycle phase, role and topic.
ALTAI: A self-assessment checklist from the EU High-Level Expert Group on AI that helps you test an AI system against the seven requirements for trustworthy AI and spot where you need extra measures.
Also listed in: RAAIT toolbox.