Given their role and responsibility, actions by law enforcement authorities involving certain uses of AI systems are  characterised by a significant degree of power imbalance and may lead to surveillance, arrest or deprivation of  a natural person’s liberty as well as other adverse impacts on fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter. In  particular, if the AI system is not trained with high-quality data, does not meet adequate requirements in terms of its  performance, its accuracy or robustness, or is not properly designed and tested before being put on the market or  otherwise put into service, it may single out people in a discriminatory or otherwise incorrect or unjust manner.  Furthermore, the exercise of important procedural fundamental rights, such as the right to an effective remedy and  to a fair trial as well as the right of defence and the presumption of innocence, could be hampered, in particular,  where such AI systems are not sufficiently transparent, explainable and documented. It is therefore appropriate to  classify as high-risk, insofar as their use is permitted under relevant Union and national law, a number of AI systems  intended to be used in the law enforcement context where accuracy, reliability and transparency is particularly  important to avoid adverse impacts, retain public trust and ensure accountability and effective redress. In view of the  nature of the activities and the risks relating thereto, those high-risk AI systems should include in particular AI  systems intended to be used by or on behalf of law enforcement authorities or by Union institutions, bodies, offices,  or agencies in support of law enforcement authorities for assessing the risk of a natural person to become a victim of  criminal offences, as polygraphs and similar tools, for the evaluation of the reliability of evidence in in the course of  investigation or prosecution of criminal offences, and, insofar as not prohibited under this Regulation, for assessing  the risk of a natural person offending or reoffending not solely on the basis of the profiling of natural persons or the  assessment of personality traits and characteristics or the past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups, for  profiling in the course of detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences. AI systems specifically  intended to be used for administrative proceedings by tax and customs authorities as well as by financial intelligence  units carrying out administrative tasks analysing information pursuant to Union anti-money laundering law should  not be classified as high-risk AI systems used by law enforcement authorities for the purpose of prevention,  detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. The use of AI tools by law enforcement and other  relevant authorities should not become a factor of inequality, or exclusion. The impact of the use of AI tools on the  defence rights of suspects should not be ignored, in particular the difficulty in obtaining meaningful information on  the functioning of those systems and the resulting difficulty in challenging their results in court, in particular by  natural persons under investigation.