人權事務委員會，一般性評議第6號 / Human Rights Committee, General Comment 6, Article 6
（人權事務委員會，一般性評議第6號，關於ICCPR第6條生命權的評論）
General Comment No. 06: The right to life (art. 6) : . 30/04/82.
CCPR General Comment No. 6. (General Comments)
Convention Abbreviation: CCPR
GENERAL COMMENT 6
The right to life
(Article 6)
(Sixteenth session, 1982)
1. The right to life enunciated in article 6 of the Covenant has been dealt with in all State reports. It is the supreme right from which no derogation is permitted even in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation (art. 4). However, the Committee has noted that quite often the information given concerning article 6 was limited to only one or other aspect of this right. It is a right which should not be interpreted narrowly.
2. The Committee observes that war and other acts of mass violence continue to be a scourge of humanity and take the lives of thousands of innocent human beings every year. Under the Charter of the United Nations the threat or use of force by any State against another State, except in exercise of the inherent right of self-defence, is already prohibited. The Committee considers that States have the supreme duty to prevent wars, acts of genocide and other acts of mass violence causing arbitrary loss of life. Every effort they make to avert the danger of war, especially thermonuclear war, and to strengthen international peace and security would constitute the most important condition and guarantee for the safeguarding of the right to life. In this respect, the Committee notes, in particular, a connection between article 6 and article 20, which states that the law shall prohibit any propaganda for war (para. 1) or incitement to violence (para. 2) as therein described.
3. The protection against arbitrary deprivation of life which is explicitly required by the third sentence of article 6 (1) is of paramount importance. The Committee considers that States parties should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces. The deprivation of life by the authorities of the State is a matter of the utmost gravity. Therefore, the law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life by such authorities.
4. States parties should also take specific and effective measures to prevent the disappearance of individuals, something which unfortunately has become all too frequent and leads too often to arbitrary deprivation of life. Furthermore, States should establish effective facilities and procedures to investigate thoroughly cases of missing and disappeared persons in circumstances which may involve a violation of the right to life.
5. Moreover, the Committee has noted that the right to life has been too often narrowly interpreted. The expression "inherent right to life" cannot properly be understood in a restrictive manner, and the protection of this right requires that States adopt positive measures. In this connection, the Committee considers that it would be desirable for States parties to take all possible measures to reduce infant mortality and to increase life expectancy, especially in adopting measures to eliminate malnutrition and epidemics.
6. While it follows from article 6 (2) to (6) that States parties are not obliged to abolish the death penalty totally they are obliged to limit its use and, in particular, to abolish it for other than the "most serious crimes". Accordingly, they ought to consider reviewing their criminal laws in this light and, in any event, are obliged to restrict the application of the death penalty to the "most serious crimes". The article also refers generally to abolition in terms which strongly suggest (paras. 2 (2) and (6)) that abolition is desirable. The Committee concludes that all measures of abolition should be considered as progress in the enjoyment of the right to life within the meaning of article 40, and should as such be reported to the Committee. The Committee notes that a number of States have already abolished the death penalty or suspended its application. Nevertheless, States' reports show that progress made towards abolishing or limiting the application of the death penalty is quite inadequate.
7. The Committee is of the opinion that the expression "most serious crimes" must be read restrictively to mean that the death penalty should be a quite exceptional measure. It also follows from the express terms of article 6 that it can only be imposed in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the Covenant. The procedural guarantees therein prescribed must be observed, including the right to a fair hearing by an independent tribunal, the presumption of innocence, the minimum guarantees for the defence, and the right to review by a higher tribunal. These rights are applicable in addition to the particular right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence.
©1996-2001
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Geneva, Switzerland
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/84ab9690ccd81fc7c12563ed0046fae3?Opendocument
第 6 號一般性意見：生命權
第十六屆會議，1982年
1. 所有國家的報告都論及《公約》第 6 條所闡明的生命權。這是甚至當威脅到國家存亡的社會緊急狀態存在時（《公約》第 4 條所述），也絕不允許克減的最重要權利。然而，委員會注意到，締約國根據第 6 條提供的資料經常僅限於這項權利的某一個方面。委員會認為這項權利不應被狹隘地解釋。
2. 委員會注意到，戰爭和其他大規模暴行繼續給人類帶來災禍，每年奪走成千上萬無辜者的生命。根據《聯合國憲章》的規定，除行使其固有自衛權利的情況外，任何國家不得對另一個國家威脅使用或使用武力。委員會認為，各國有防止戰爭 種族滅絕和造成任意剝奪生命的其他大規模暴行的重大責任。、它們為防止戰爭危險，特別是核子戰爭，以及加強國際和平與安全所作的任何努力，都是維護生命權利的最重要條件和保證。在這方面，委員會特別注意到第 6 條和第 20 條之間的關係。第 20 條規定，法律應當禁止任何鼓吹戰爭的宣傳（第 1 款）或它所指明的煽動暴力的行為（第 2 款）。
3. 第 6 條第 1 款第 3 句明確規定，不得任意剝奪生命，這是極其重要的規定。委員會認為，各締約國應當採取措施，不僅防止和懲罰剝奪生命的犯罪行為，而且防止本國保安部隊任意殺人。國家當局剝奪人民生命是極其嚴重的問題。因此，法律必須對這種國家當局剝奪人民生命的各種可能情況加以約束和限制。
4. 締約國也應當採取具體的有效措施，防止個人失蹤 (disappearance ofindividuals)。不幸的是，這種情事頻繁發生，常常造成任意剝奪人命的後果。此外，各國應當建立有效的機構和制定有效的程式，以便在可能涉及侵犯生存權的時候，徹底調查個人失蹤的案件。
5. 此外，委員會注意到，對生命權的解釋，常常十分狹隘。對「固有生存權(inherent right to life)」這個詞的範圍加以局限，就無法恰當地瞭解它的意義，保護這項權利需要締約國採取積極措施。在這方面，委員會認為，締約國須採取一切可能措施，減少嬰兒死亡率和提高預期壽命，特別是採取措施，消滅營養不良和流行病。
6. 雖然按照第 6 條第 2 至第 6 款的規定來看，締約國並沒有義務徹底廢除死刑，但它們有義務限制死刑的執行；特別是對「最嚴重罪行」以外的案例廢除這種刑罰。因此，締約國必須考慮參照這項規定，審查該國的刑法，同時，無論如何，它們有義務把死刑的適用範圍局限於「最嚴重罪行」。本條款也一般性地提到廢除死刑，採取強烈語氣建議各國廢除死刑（如本條第 2(2)及2(6)款）。委員會總結認為，所有廢除死刑的措施都應視為使人民享有生命權的進展，而此進展應依照《公約》第 40 條所示向委員會提出報告。委員會注意到，若干締約國已廢除死刑或暫停執行死刑。然而，從締約國的報告來看，在廢除或限制死刑的執行方面，所獲的進展相當不理想。
7. 委員會認為，「最嚴重罪行」這個詞的意義必須嚴格限定，它意味著死刑應當是十分特殊的措施。由第 6 條的規定來看，死刑的判處只能按照犯罪時有效且不違反本《公約》規定的法律行之。必須遵守《公約》所規定的程序上的保證，包括有權由一個獨立的法庭進行公正審訊、無罪推定原則、確保至少有最低限度的抗辯防禦(minimum guarantees for the defence)、其案件具有被較高級法庭審查的權利。在上述這些權利之外，還有尋求赦免或減刑的特定權利。