國際人權法在我國法院之適用──以精障者是否可科處死刑為例

Application of International Human Rights Law in Taiwan’s Court: Case Studies of Death Penalty on Mentally

自從兩公約施行法頒布以來，我國法院應如何解釋與適用兩人權公約？這個問題在我國無論在理論上或實務上皆具有重要性。在國際法上我國是否受到兩公約之拘束？還是說我國只受到內國法源（兩公約施行法）之拘束？我國是否負擔國家人權報告之國際法義務？2013年我國自辦之國家人權報告書（state report）之繳交與審查，是否可認為已經履行了公政公約第40條與經社文公約第16條之國家報告義務？2013年在我國自辦之國家報告審查程序中，國際人權專家小組之結論建議（Concluding Observations）是否具有法拘束力？該拘束力之法源依據是國際法還是內國法？
本文以兩則最高法院之判決為例，討論精障者是否不得科處死刑，比較這兩則判決關於國際人權公約論述之差異，並指出人權公約解釋與適用之問題？最後提出建議。

Since the Enforcement Law for ICCPR and ICESCR is enacted in Taiwan, how should the Taiwanese courts interpret and apply both treaties? This is an important question in theory and in practice. Additionally, are the ICCPR and the ICESCR internationally binding for ROC? In other words, is Taiwan legally bound by the Enforcement Law of ICCPR and ICESCR only? Is releasing national human rights report a legal obligation for Taiwan? Has Taiwan fulfilled the state responsibility of report requested by Article 40 of ICCPR and Article 16 of ICESCR through self-submitting and reviewing the state report in 2013? Is the Concluding Observations 2013 provided by a panel of international human rights experts in the process of reviewing the state report legally binding for Taiwan? Is the binding force based on international law or domestic law?
Taking two cases ruled by the Supreme Court as examples, this article aims to discuss whether death penalty should be imposed on mentally retarded people. The differences between the discourses concerning the international human rights conventions maintained by the Supreme Court in these cases are compared. The problems of interpreting and applying the human rights conventions are pinpointed. Suggestions are provided at the end.