2014年刑事程序法裁判回顧：從國際人權公約內國法化的觀點出發

自公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約施行法於2009年施行生效後，兩公約就正式具有國內法效力，關於解釋公約的法源及方法，兩公約施行法第3條規定：「適用兩公約規定，應參照其立法意旨及兩公約人權事務委員會之解釋。」據此，兩公約人權規定及其相關解釋，包括審查國家報告之結論性觀察意見，都是我國兩公約施行法第3條所稱必須參照的「解釋」，也是正式的法源依據。據此，法官適用我國刑事訴訟法時，應以「合乎公約之內國法解釋」作為指導原則，以免內國刑事訴訟法牴觸公政公約。從國際人權法內國法化的觀點出發，本文自2014年最高法院刑事裁判中，選擇與公政公約第14條公平審判條款密切相關之議題進行評釋，此些議題分別為：1、刑事被告本人閱卷權；2、通譯語言協助；3、上訴第三審之限制。藉此，闡釋公約內國法化的基本觀點，並簡評裁判與兩公約程序要求之落差，以檢視兩公約施行5年後，我國刑事訴訟法與國際人權法的接軌情況。

關鍵字

公政公約；通譯協助權；被告閱卷權；上訴第三審之限制；公平審判

並列摘要

After ＂Act to Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereafter the two Covenants)＂ promulgated in 2009, human rights protection provisions in the two Covenants have domestic legal status. According to Art. 3 of the Act, applications of the two Covenants should make reference to their legislative purposes and interpretations by the Human Rights Committee. Therefore, the practice of judicial decisions must conform to the provisions and interpretations of two Covenants. The primary purposes of this article are to emphasize the domestic legal adjustification toward international human rights treaties. In order to clearly demonstrate its developments, a numbers of Supreme Court criminal judgments regarding to fair trial were taken as study sources. Therefore, this article pays attention to the statutes of ICCPR and its concluding observations which closely related to criminal procedures so as to examine the judicial practice on its implementations. Aiming at examining domesticalization of international human rights instruments, the article focuses on three topics: 1. The defendant's right to direct access to case file; 2. The right to receive assistance of interpreter; 3. The right to appeal to the third instance and its limitations. Each of the three topics will be analyzed in the light of its theoretical and practical aspect and finishes with a separate conclusion.