“Tensions may arise between the above principles, for which there is no fixed solution. In line with the EU fundamental commitment to democratic engagement, due process and open political participation, methods of accountable deliberation to deal with such tensions should be established. For instance, in various application domains, the principle of prevention of harm and the principle of human autonomy may be in conflict. Consider as an example the use of AI systems for ‘predictive policing’, which may help to reduce crime, but in ways that entail surveillance activities that impinge on individual liberty and privacy. Furthermore, AI systems’ overall benefits should substantially exceed the foreseeable individual risks. While the above principles certainly offer guidance towards solutions, they remain abstract ethical prescriptions. AI practitioners can hence not be expected to find the right solution based on the principles above, yet they should approach ethical dilemmas and trade-offs via reasoned, evidence-based reflection rather than intuition or random discretion. There may be situations, however, where no ethically acceptable trade-offs can be identified. Certain fundamental rights and correlated principles are absolute and cannot be subject to a balancing exercise (e.g. human dignity The human right to be valued and treated with respect because of one's personhood. ).” (High-Level Expert Group on AI, 2019, p. 13)