公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約(下稱「兩公約」)及其施行法(下稱「兩公約施行法」)於2009年3月31日經我國立法院審議通過,總統於2009年4月22日公布,並經行政院定自2009年12月10日施行。而兩公約施行法是我國第一次以國內法的立法予以填補無法存放批准書,使得國際人權公約有國內法之地位,如此當屬與國際人權接軌的新氣象及開端。又我國既已簽署了兩公約,且將其內國法化後,更制定施行法予以施行,此即表示與國際人權接軌之決心,而法院作為司法人權保障的重要機關,對於兩公約如何於裁判上充分展現人權保障之功能,自當責無旁貸。 另一方面,自兩公約施行後至頃近,2010年至2013年,總共執行了21位死刑犯,繼2013年4月執行六位後,最近的一次即2014年4月,我國法務部又執行了5位。我國之死刑判決及執行不僅值得高度關注,且就生命權及死刑議題在司法脈絡上的持續發展,仍誠屬重要且應予以持續觀察、檢討之範疇。 然而,就刑事裁判適用兩公約的研究中,目前尚未見有國內文獻對於兩公約適用情形與其中的瑕疵處提出詳細的說明或分析。基此,本文遂以兩公約施行後和生命權相關之最高法院裁判為觀察對象(又於兩公約中,因主要涉及生命權相關概念之公約乃「公民與政治權利國際公約」,因此,本文將以「公民與政治權利國際公約」為主,而下稱「公約」者,亦係專指「公民與政治權利國際公約」),試圖勾勒出我國最高法院適用公約的情形及問題點。 是以,本文主要係探討自2009年12月10日兩公約施行法施行後至今,約莫4年半之時間,公約中之生命權等概念於我國最高法院刑事裁判之適用情形。其次,本文續於此等脈絡下展開如下之分析:第二、三章分別為總論性及各論性之說明,其中將包含若干公約適用之概念介紹及釐清,如公約「是否」及「如何」被適用於法院裁判中、未適用公約或公約適用不當之司法救濟途徑、公約於我國最高法院刑事裁判之適用概況,各論性之部分則著重於公約中所涉之「生命權」概念、人權基準下的生命權內涵、死刑裁判的要件(程序要件、實體要件、對象限制)限制以及相關人權事務委員會(HRC)之解釋及案例,此等說明將有助於本文後續之實務裁判分析;第四章則是實踐面上的檢討分析,以2012年12月最高法院宣告往後就死刑裁判均應經三審言詞辯論此一變革為分水嶺,劃分出「公約適用『認知塑造期』:2009/12-2012/12」以及「公約適用『啟蒙期』:2012/12至今」,檢討公約生命權、死刑判決於我國最高法院刑事裁判(共計31則裁判)之適用情形,本文將一一歸納、說明,並就該等實證研究發現之缺失予以檢討;第五章則為結論與建議,在人權保障與我國刑事司法裁判的交錯適用下,提出相關建議及反省。
To trace the article 6 and 7 of ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) concerning Right to life implement in the criminal justice practice and the trend of Taiwanese criminal procedure, the concept of “Right to life” and the practical cases made by Taiwan Supreme Court (TSC) during the past five years (2009-2014) will be examined in this paper. Through the examination of TSC’s judgments towards some significant issues, such as right to life (article 6), capital punishment, “the most serious crimes”, procedural guarantees, etc., the following facts are discovered. First, to show the application of the Convention, TSC always cite the Article of the ICCPR in the TSC criminal judgments, but there is no further specific standards and interpretation when dealing with individual cases. And in some cases, there is some misunderstanding of the interpretation in ICCPR. Second, the different opinions from separate courts in TSC are often against each other. As a result, the predictability of sentence and people’s rights are sacrificed. Therefore, not only the violation of the ICCPR in criminal judgment is increasing, but TSC also has to face the profound distrust of the people. As a solution, the author gives his point of view: It is particularly necessary for TSC to reconsider its long-term neglect of the correct interpretation in ICCPR, especially in the human rights standards of death penalty and related cases. Besides, to reduce these negative impacts, a system inside TSC, which can standardize the currently inconsistent views of its separate courts, must soon be accurately established by the legislative authority.