過當驅離集會—以歐洲人權法及德國法為借鏡

Abstract

國家過當驅離人民集會現已成為各國均面臨的人權危機，本文主要透過歐洲人權法及德國法梳理和平集會自由及酷刑與非人道處遇禁止之人權保障內涵與國家義務，並回顧我國相關規定及集會驅離案件。 不論國籍，人人均享有和平集會自由，若集會自始具暴力意圖則非屬和平，歐洲人權法院向來從寬認定。其亦認為許可制相較報備制，更易使與會者產生寒蟬效應，而對於與會者不應予以過當武力驅離，亦不得單純針對與會課以行政懲處與刑事追訴。德國於基本法中進一步規定「不攜帶武器」以強化集會之和平性誡命，主管機關應負有查明集會不具和平性之義務作為解散依據。根據德國聯邦集會遊行法規定，集會採報備制，如未報備，主管機關得命解散，然仍須視該情形是否對公共秩序或安全造成具體危害。我國雖於司法院釋字第718號解釋後，放寬對緊急性與偶發性集會之許可限制，然宜採報備制，方能使人民真正享有表達意見之自由。 過當集會驅離亦涉及了歐洲人權公約規定酷刑與非人道處遇禁止之誡命，歐洲人權法院從此延伸導出國家所負有之程序性義務，即須徹底、迅速且獨立調查內國所發生酷刑與非人道處遇之情事，並予行為人相應處罰之效果。德國刑事實務上大量運用出於便宜原則而制定之停止程序為終結，此雖引發國家刑罰權交易之疑慮，然此必須以事實澄清為前提，與為遏止檢察官濫為不起訴之自訴程序同樣對應了歐洲人權法院對於調查義務之要求。回顧我國324行政院驅離案件．對於檢察官遲遲不為偵查起訴所涉非人道處遇情事之行為，於現行刑法下僅濫權不起訴罪得以繩之，縱提起自訴程序，法院應負職權調查義務，以符合歐洲人權法院所建立之誡命，人權保障不應僅淪為口號。

The excessively assembly expelling of the country, which has already become international crisis of human rights. This thesis research the positive obligations of the country in the freedom of peaceful assembly and the prohibition of torture while making comparison with European Human Rights Law and German Law. Finally, it reflects on the related articles and cases that the country made excessive force on assembly in Taiwan. Everyone has the freedom of peaceful assembly. If the assembly begin with violent intention, European Court on Human Rights indicate that the assembly is unpeaceful. The Court also indicate that whether the prior procedure is notification or authorization, which should avoid leading to the Chilling Effect. The country shouldn’t make excessive force on participants and give them punishment for pure participation. German fundamental law set “Unarmed” for strengthening the claim of “peace”. The Authorities need to prove the assembly is unpeaceful for dissolving. According to the German Federal Law on Assembly, if the assembly violates the prior notification, the Authorities still have to measure whether the situation is causing particular harm to public order or security. Although the restriction of emergency and spontaneous demonstration has been loosen in Taiwan after the Judicial Interpretation No. 718, I think the notification procedure is truly better for expression. This problem also relates on the prohibition of torture in European Convention on Human Rights. The Court extends the procedural obligations of country from this Article. The country should make thorough, expedient and independent investigation to the condition that torture or inhuman treatment happened in the country, and give the perpetrator adequate punishment. German criminal practice usually end the criminal proceeding with “stopping proceeding” of procedure which comes from “the cheaper principle”. It criticized that the crime is transacted by country, but it have to be used after clarifying the criminal fact. Private prosecution is the same. They correspond the procedural obligations from the Court. In the disputed case that expelled from Executive Yuan on Mar 24, 2014, the prosecutors who delayed investigation, violated such obligations. The court has the obligation of inquisitorial investigation, even in the private prosecution. The protection of Human rights should be more than a slogan.