大法官解釋 釋字第756號 |
---|
公佈日期:2017/12/1 |
解釋爭點 |
1.監獄行刑法第66條是否違反憲法第12條保障之秘密通訊自由? 2.同法施行細則第82條第1款、第2款及第7款是否逾越母法之授權? 3.同法施行細則第81條第3項是否違反憲法第23條之法律保留原則及第11條保障之表現自由? |
(二)有關受刑人所應享有之基本權利,本號解釋附註援引之聯合國大會通過之受監禁者待遇基本原則(Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners)第5點規定:「除可證明屬監禁所必要之限制外,所有受監禁者均保有其在世界人權宣言,以及(如各該國為後列公約之締約國者)經濟社會文化權利國際公約、公民與政治權利國際公約及其任擇議定書所規定之人權及基本自由,並包括聯合國其他公約所規定之其他權利。」(Except for those limitations that are demonstrably necessitated by the fact of incarceration, all prisoners shall retain the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and, where the State concerned is a party, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol thereto, as well as such other rights as are set out in other United Nations covenants.)除此之外,諸多其他國際人權文件,對於受刑人所應享有之基本權利,亦有相關之闡釋,足以支持多數意見有關受刑人應享有基本權利之論述。例如公民與政治國際權利公約(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;ICCPR)第7條即規定:「對任何人均不得加以折磨或施以殘忍的、不人道的或侮辱性的待遇或刑罰。⋯⋯」(No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment⋯⋯)同公約第10條第1項亦規定:「對所有被剝奪自由之人應給予人道及尊重其固有之人格尊嚴的待遇。」(All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.)聯合國第21號一般性意見(General Comment No. 21)第4點規定:「以人道與尊重人格的方式對待喪失自由者,為基本且普世適用的規則。因此,此項規則乃最低標準,其適用,不得基於會員國物質資源是否充裕而有異⋯⋯」(Treating all persons deprived of their liberty with humanity and with respect for their dignity is a fundamental and universally applicable rule. Consequently, the application of this rule, as a minimum, cannot be dependent on the material resources available in the State party. ⋯⋯)聯合國受刑人處遇最低標準規則(United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners; the Nelson Mandela Rules)規則一規定:「所有受監禁者應被以尊嚴及符合人之價值的方式待之⋯⋯。」(All prisoners shall be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings. ⋯⋯)規則三規定:「⋯⋯除因正當隔離或維護紀律所因而造成的限制外,監獄體系不得使受監禁者受到更惡化的待遇。」(⋯⋯ prison system shall not, except as incidental to justifiable separation or the maintenance of discipline, aggravate the suffering inherent in such a situation.)歐洲監獄規則(European Prison Rules)第1點及第3點規定:「自由受剝奪之人之人權應被尊重。」(All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for their human rights.)「自由受剝奪之人仍保有其未遭判決合法剝奪之一切權利。」(Persons deprived of their liberty retain all rights that are not lawfully taken away by the decision sentencing them or remanding them in custody.) 二、有關本件涉及憲法權利之內容部分: (一)多數意見認為系爭規定一有關檢閱受刑人書信部分,涉及憲法第12條所保障人民之秘密通訊自由;系爭規定一後段有關刪除書信內容部分,涉及憲法第12條所保障之秘密通訊自由及第11條所保障之表現自由;系爭規定三有關限制受刑人投稿部分,涉及憲法第11條所保障之表現自由。本席均敬表同意。 (二)本席認為,系爭規定三另侵害受刑人之思想自由(freedom of thought)。蓋憲法第11條所規定人民之言論及表現自由,除明文保障表現在外之言論自由外,亦寓有保障尚未發表於外之內在思想自由之意旨。思想自由目的在保障人民內在精神活動,係人類文明之根源與言論自由之基礎,亦為憲法所欲保障之基本人性尊嚴,對自由民主憲政秩序之存續,具特殊重要意義,不容國家機關基於任何理由(諸如因應緊急事態),以任何方式予以侵害(本院釋字第567號解釋參照)。亦即,思想自由應受憲法「絕對之保障」。監獄雖負有教化受刑人,使其改過遷善,然不應賦予監獄長官審查受刑人發受之信件或撰寫之文稿題意是否正確,始決定是否准許受刑人發受或投寄,否則等於係要求受刑人內在思想以及表現在外所撰寫之文字內容符合一定之內涵或教條,乃對受刑人內在精神活動之限制,已非單純對表現自由的限制。其對受刑人思想予以檢查及干涉,侵害其受憲法絕對保障之思想自由。多數意見未能論及系爭規定三亦侵害受刑人思想自由,甚為可惜。 |
< 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > |
填單諮詢
最新考試專區