一事不再理原則又被稱作「禁止雙重危險規則」(rule against double jeopardy)，
其意為在刑事訴訟程序中，同一人不因同一事實或罪行，而受到重複追訴、審理 或處罰。1966 年《公民及政治權利國際盟約》207第 14 條第 7 項規定：「任何人依 法律或刑事程序經最終判決有罪或宣告無罪時，不得尌同一犯罪再行審判或處罰。
against him in the issuing Member State.”
202 主張國民不引渡的傳統大陸法系國家，例如德國亦於 2000 年 11 月 29 日修改基本法第 16 條
203 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. UNTS Volume Number 2225 (p.209) . Registration Number 39574 Available from:
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280050d3e&clang=_en (accessed
207 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. UNTS Volume Number 999 (p.171) . Registration Number 14668. Available from:
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280004bf5&clang=_en (accessed 2019/01/25)
‧
208 Ibid.. Art. 14, para 7:”No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure
of each country.”
209 Stanbrook, I., & Stanbrook, C. (2000), supra note 5, p.137.例如美國聯邦憲法第 5 修正案規定：
「同一罪案不得令被告遭受 2 次生命或身體上之危險。」我國刑法第 9 條規定：「同一行為雖 經外國確定裁判，仍得依本法處斷。但在外國已受刑之全部或一部執行者，得免其刑之全部 或一部之執行。」按我國刑事訴訟實務，一事不再理限於實體判決案件。惟在引渡方面，本 原則應擴大適用於非實體(程序)的情況。
210 Spinellis, D. (2002). Global report the ne bis in idem principle in “global” instruments. Revue internationale de droit pénal, 73(3), p.1150.
211 趙永琛，同註 13，頁 195-196。
212 黃風，同註 22，頁 68。
213 Extradition Act 2003. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/contents (accessed 2019/01/25)
214 Ibid.. Art. 80:”A person‟s extradition to a category 2 territory is barred by reason of the rule against double jeopardy if (and only if) it appears that he would be entitled to be discharged under any rule of law relating to previous acquittal or conviction if he were charged with the extradition offence in the part of the United Kingdom where the judge exercises his jurisdiction.”
215 Model Treaty on Extradition. Supra note 75. Art. 3(d):”Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances: (d)If there has been a final judgment rendered against the person in the requested State in respect of the offence for which the person's extradition is requested.”
216 Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures. Supra note 98. Art. 4(3) ,(5) :”The executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant: 3. where the judicial authorities of the executing Member State have decided either not to prosecute for the offence on which the European arrest warrant is based or to halt proceedings, or where a final judgment has been passed upon the requested person in a Member State, in respect of the same acts, which prevents further proceedings; 5. if the executing judicial authority is informed that the requested person has been finally judged by a third State in respect of the same acts provided that, where there has been sentence, the sentence has been served or is currently being
‧
(statutory limitation)規定外，大多數國家都有時效限制之規定。221然而各國對於追 訴權或行刑權的時效規定並不一致，例如有主張以被請求國法律所規定時效期間 為依據者；222或者有主張以請求國法律所規定時效期間為依據者；223抑或以被請served or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing country.”
217 European Convention on Extradition. Supra note 11. Art. 8:”The requested Party may refuse to extradite the person claimed if the competent authorities of such Party are proceeding against him in respect of the offence or offences for which extradition is requested.”
218 Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures. Supra note 98. Art. 4(2):”The executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the
European arrest warrant: where the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant is being prosecuted in the executing Member State for the same act as that on which the European arrest warrant is based.”
219 陳榮傑，同註 2，頁 117。
220 Convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity. UNTS Volume Number 754 (p.73). Registration Number 10823. Available from:
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280034934&clang=_en (accessed 2019/01/27)
221 大多數(most)大陸法系國家對於刑事犯罪有規定法定時效，然而多數普通法系國家則無，例 如英國對於多數重罪的追訴機制並無規定時效限制。Stanbrook, I., & Stanbrook, C. (2000), supra note 5, p.140.
222 例如 1996 年《美法引渡條約》第 9 條第 1 項之規定；及比利時《引渡法》第 7 條規定。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
求國及請求國二者法律所規定之時效期間為依據者。224我國《引渡法》第 5 條第 1 項規定：「請求引渡之犯罪，業經中華民國法院不起訴，…免訴者應拒絕引渡。」
另按我國《刑事訴訟法》第 252 條第 2 款規定：「案件有下列情形之一者，應為 不起訴之處分：時效已完成者。」及同法第 302 條第 2 款規定：「案件有下列情 形之一者，應諭知免訴之判決：時效已完成者。」是以，在無條約規定時，按我 國法律之規定，應以被請求國(我國)之法律決定時效限制。225
(二)赦免
按我國《赦免法》第 1 條規定：「本法稱赦免者，謂大赦、特赦、…」另按 同法第 2 條規定：「大赦之效力如左：一、已受罪刑之宣告者，其宣告為無效。
二、未受罪刑之宣告者，其追訴權消滅。」及第 3 條規定：「受罪刑宣告之人經 特赦者，免除其刑之執行；其情節特殊者，得以其罪刑之宣告為無效。」我國《引 渡法》第 5 條第 1 項規定：「請求引渡之犯罪，業經中華民國法院…，或已赦免 者，應拒絕引渡。」本條規定係指在我國(被請求國)經赦免者而言，倘係在請求 國受赦免者，既無追訴或處罰之必要，自無引渡請求之依據基礎，應予拒絕。226 (三)時效消滅與赦免的國際立法規範
1、同時涵蓋時效消滅與赦免：《聯合國引渡示範條約》第 3 條(e)款規定：「根 據締約國任一方的法律，如果被請求引渡者因時效消滅或大赦等任何原因，而可 免於起訴或懲罰，則不得准予引渡。227」
2、時效消滅：《歐洲引渡公約》第 10 條規定：「按請求國及被請求國法律，
倘因時效消滅而使被請求引渡者免於起訴或懲罰時，不得准予引渡。228」
223 例如 1978 年《美德引渡條約》第 9 條之規定；及阿根廷《引渡法》第 3 條(5)款規定。
224 例如 1978 年《美墨引渡條約》第 7 條之規定；及 1972 年《美英引渡條約》第 5 條第 1 項 b 款之規定。
225 陳榮傑，同註 2，頁 120。
226 陳榮傑，同註 2，頁 123。
227 Model Treaty on Extradition. Supra note 75. Art. 3(e):”Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances: If the person whose extradition is requested has, under the law of either Party, become immune from prosecution or punishment for any reason, including lapse of time or amnesty.”
228 European Convention on Extradition. Supra note 11. Art. 10:”Extradition shall not be granted when the person claimed has, according to the law of either the requesting or the requested Party, become
‧
immune by reason of lapse of time from prosecution or punishment.”
229 Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures. Supra note 98. Art.3(1):”The judicial authority of the Member State of execution shall refuse to execute the European arrest warrant in the following cases: if the offence on which the arrest warrant is based is covered by amnesty in the executing Member State, where that State had jurisdiction to prosecute the offence under its own criminal law.”
230 Rodley, N., & Pollard, M. (2009). The treatment of prisoners under international law. OUP Oxford, p.279-297.
231 廢除死刑的理論最早是由義大利刑法學家切薩雷·貝卡里亞(Cesare Beccaria)於 1764 年所著
《論犯罪與刑罰》一書中所提倡，而真正在立法上廢除死刑則始於 19 世紀中期，由美國密西 根州於 1847 年首開廢除死刑先河。參見趙秉志，同註 8，頁 339。
232 Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. UNTS Volume Number 1642 (p.414). Registration Number 14668 Available from:
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280006477&clang=_en (accessed 2019/02/01)
233 Stanbrook, I., & Stanbrook, C. (2000), supra note 5, p.153.
234 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Available from:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT&from=EN (accessed 2019/02/01) 隨著《里斯本條約》在 2009 年 12 月 1 日生效，《歐洲聯盟基本權利憲 章》也同時生效，具有拘束歐盟成員國之效力。但因英國、波蘭行使《里斯本條約》所賦予 的退出選擇權，而使該憲章在該國境內不生拘束力。
235 Ibid.. Art. 2, para.2:”No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.”
236 根據《2017 年國際特赦組織死刑判決與處決的全球報告》(2017 Amnesty International global report on death sentences and executions)，所有罪行均已廢除死刑規定之國家計有 106 個；針 對普通罪行廢除死刑規定之國家計有 7 個；法律上雖保有死刑規定，但過去 10 年內並未執行 死刑，或已提出不使用死刑之國際承諾的國家計有 29 個；上開在法律上或事實上廢除死刑的
‧
國。資料來源：2017 Amnesty International global report on death sentences and executions, p.40-41. Available from:https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ACT5079552018ENGLISH.PDF (accessed 2019/02/01)
237 Stanbrook, I., & Stanbrook, C. (2000), supra note 5, p.153.
238 趙秉志，同註 8，頁 338。
239 同前註，頁 345-347。
240 European Convention on Extradition. Supra note 11. Art. 11:”If the offence for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the law of the requesting Party, and if in respect of such offence the death- penalty is not provided for by the law of the requested Party or is not normally carried out, extradition may be refused unless the requesting Party gives such assurance as the requested Party considers sufficient that the death-penalty will not be carried out.”
241 Model Treaty on Extradition. Supra note 75. Art. 4(d):”If the offence for which extradition is requested carries the death penalty under the law of the requesting State, unless that State gives such assurance as the requested Sate considers sufficient that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out. Where extradition is refused on this ground, the requested State shall, if the other State so requests, submit the case to its competent authorities with a view to taking appropriate action against the person for the offence for which extradition had been requested.”
‧
242 Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Mutual Assistance Act, IMAC).
Available from:
https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19810037/201301010000/351.1.pdf (accessed 2019/02/03)
243 Ibid.. Art. 37, para.3:”Extradition shall also be denied if the requesting State fails to guarantee that the defendant will not be sentenced to death, that an already pronounced death penalty will not be carried out, or that he will not be subjected to treatment that will impair his physical integrity.”
244 Act On International Cooperation in Criminal Matters. Supra note 58, Sec.8:”If the offence is punishable by death under the law of the requesting State, extradition shall not be granted unless the requesting State gives assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed, or if already imposed, not be enforced.”
245 Extradition Act 2003. Supra note 213. Art. 94:”(1)The Secretary of State must not order a person‟s extradition to a category 2 territory if he could be, will be or has been sentenced to death for the offence concerned in the category 2 territory. (2)Subsection (1) does not apply if the Secretary of State receives a written assurance which he considers adequate that a sentence of death—(a)will not be imposed, or(b)will not be carried out (if imposed).”
246 例如被請求國要求請求國：1.頇保證不對被引渡人判處死刑；2.或者保證即便被引渡人被判處 死刑，也不會處刑；3.或者保證會改判死刑以外的其他刑罰。
247 趙秉志，同註 8，頁 343。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
際間引渡立法亦多採行第二種模式。248
(三)死刑(不)引渡的實務案例
1、Joseph John Kindler 引渡案249(加拿大與美國)
在本案中，美、加兩國簽有引渡條約，惟該條約第 6 條規定被請求國對於死 刑是否引渡具有裁量空間(extradition “may” be refused)。因此美國在未提出不判 處或執行死刑之保證的情形下，加拿大仍同意將可能會被判死的罪犯引渡返美。
1983 年， Kindler 因犯下一級謀殺罪及綁架罪，賓州陪審團(Pennsylvania jury) 遂無異議通過並建議法官應判處被告死刑。Kindler 在判決定讞之前，成功從賓 州監獄潛逃至加拿大。數個月後，Kindler 被加拿大官方逮捕歸案。1985 年，美 國依據 1971 年《美加引渡條約》向加拿大請求引渡 Kindler。1986 年，加拿大司 法部長 John Crosbie 依據 1985 年《加拿大引渡法》第 25 條規定，行使部長裁量 權並下令引渡 Kindler，然而司法部長並沒有按 1971 年《美加引渡條約》第 6 條 規定，要求美國提出不會判處被引渡人死刑或執行死刑的保證。Kindler 在聞悉 該項決定後，接連向魁北克高級法院、魁北克上訴法院及聯合國人權委員會提出 上訴，接連未果。本案迄至 1991 年 9 月 26 日，最終由加拿大最高法院以 4：3 決議通過，支持加拿大司法部長將 Kindler 引渡到美國的決定。儘管 Kindler 在 被引渡返美後，可能會面臨死刑處決，加拿大最高法院仍裁定該國司法部長依據
《加拿大引渡法》所為之無條件解交(unconditioned surrender)，合乎《加拿大權 利和自由憲章》(Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)及 1976 年提出的國家廢 死聲明。
2、 Charles Donald Short 引渡案250(荷蘭與美國)
相較於 Joseph John Kindler 引渡案，歐洲國家對於死刑不引渡的附帶要求較
相較於 Joseph John Kindler 引渡案，歐洲國家對於死刑不引渡的附帶要求較