禁止刑求訊問之研究

A Study on the Prohibition of Torture as an Interrogation Method

呂弘智(Hung-Chih Lu)

指導教授 ： 劉靜怡

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2011.02754

摘要

這篇論文主要有幾個部分。首先本文藉由相關文獻，來介紹歐洲早期糾問制下的司法刑求訊問制度的起源與發展，並了解刑訊開始被運用於重大刑案的歷史脈絡。雖然經過數百年的時間到了近代，酷刑和刑訊行為仍未完全消失於現代文明社會之中，但在近幾十年來，各國際人權公約都秉持著禁止刑訊之理念。本文將透過整個歷史的進程，回顧刑訊發展面貌，並建立現代人權保障之觀念。

其次，本文透過國際人權判決之整理，來重構國家對於禁止刑訊原則的重視性。歐洲人權公約第3條規定，無人應受酷刑、非人道或侮辱性待遇或處罰。歐洲人權法院在其相關裁判中，針對第3條之不確定法律概念，做了內涵上的補充。且透過Aksoy v. Turkey、Selmounit v. France等案件，強調國家積極調查義務，必須在刑訊案件發生後，在合理、迅速、有效的期間內偵查，並將涉案人員定罪、給與被害人補償。人權法院雖強調本條無例外容許性，但在近來恐怖份子攻擊事件陸續發生後，是否可以對恐怖份子刑求偵訊則成為討論的焦點，特別是在美國歷經911事件後，在反恐戰爭中為了獲取恐怖行動的情報資訊，而對於疑似蓋達和塔利班組織的中東裔人士進行刑求偵訊，另外，由CIA主導的「非常規引渡和海外秘密基地」計畫，讓部分歐洲國家涉嫌配合美國的刑求政策。

再者，透過近幾年來國際上所發生的事件，例如定時炸彈案、恐怖份子劫機案、與德國之Daschner案等等…，來介紹實際上曾經發生的營救式刑求案例，綜合歸納出營救式刑求的要件，並處理營救式刑求所衍生之程序法上與實體法上相關問題。最後，透過我國法之檢討，在批准公民與政治權利國際公約後，我國除了貫徹絕對禁止刑訊之立場外，尚須克盡公約第7條之國家積極調查義務，政府在面臨刑求案件時，應在合理期間內迅速調查、釐清真相，且透過憲法解釋，不受酷刑應成為獨立之憲法上權利。

關鍵字

刑求 ； 酷刑、殘忍、非人道或侮辱性待遇或處罰 ； 歐洲人權公約第3條 ； 聯合國禁止刑訊公約 ； 公民與政治權利國際公約第7條 ； 營救式刑求 ； 定時炸彈案 ； 非常規引渡與海外秘密基地 ； 江國慶案

並列摘要

My thesis is about the prohibition of torture as an interrogation method. It can be divided into four parts. First of all, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights is an important standard. It states that no one shall be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The European Court of Human Rights in Aksoy v. Turkey and Selmouni v. France cases imposed the requirement to thoroughly investigate the possibility of torture. Due to the fundamental importance of the prohibition on torture, the Court imposed an obligation under Article 13 of the European Convention to conduct thorough and effective investigations of incidents of torture. Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society. Even when States face the difficulties of protecting their communities from terrorist violence, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim’s conduct.

However, in the war against terror this kind of absolute prohibition is subjected to derogation, especially after the 911 incident. Between 2001 and 2009, the U. S. Government committed the same abhorrent practices of torture which it has consistently opposed when committed by other states. What is astonishing is that such practices were initiated at the highest level of government. The practices of torture became official policy and were carried out by the U. S. military, CIA, and private contractors in territory under U. S. control, in secret prisons abroad called “black sites”, with the connivance of other governments under the euphemism of “extraordinary rendition”.

Besides, the prohibition of torture also faces the challenge of “salvation-oriented torture” or “Rettungsfolter”. Even though it is our right as human beings not to be subjected to torture or to other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, should this human right be set aside in an extreme emergency to allow such acts as means of extracting information from terrorists or kidnappers? It is a traditional debate by “Ticking-Bomb scenario”. I will dicuss this question both on law and moral aspects, and I will explain why even in this emergency we still have to maintain the fundamental value of the prohibition of torture.

Finally, the thesis turns back to the Taiwan situation. Recently in Taiwan there are lots of well-known torture cases. This means that our country still have not made a thorough self-examination. Since Taiwan has ratified The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2009, we can directly apply the article 7 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, and punishment. It is one of the few absolute rights in ICCPR, and no restrictions are permitted. As to native laws, although we can not find any specific independent right against torture on Constitutional law, we have to ensure this kind of right through the explanation of Constitution.

並列關鍵字

Torture ； Art.3 of ECHR ； inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment ； Art.7 of ICCPR ； UNCAT ； salvation-oriented torture ； Rettungsfolter ； utilism ； torture terrorists ； ticking-bomb scenario ； extraordinary rendition ； black sites ； waterboarding ； coercive interrogation

參考文獻

民間司法改革基金會（2002），正義的陰影：對台灣司法最深沉的控訴，初版，

林鈺雄（2010），刑事訴訟法（上冊），修正六版，台北：元照。

楊采文（2009），從無線射頻識別技術再思考隱私的概念，臺灣大學國家發展研

林鈺雄（2007），刑事程序與國際人權，初版，台北：台灣大學人文社會高等研

林鈺雄（1999），非任意性自白之繼續效力，台灣本土法學雜誌第3期。