「公政公約」有國內法地位之後，形成憲法、國際人權條約、法律之三角互動關係。雖然大法官認為死刑不違憲，國內有多數法律得以處死刑，然而最高法院適用「公政公約」而認為僅有故意殺人之最嚴重犯罪得處死刑，同時不得有唯一死刑規範。對於智能及精神障礙者不得處死刑，處死刑必須有量刑辯論程序。本文認為這些判決意見符合「公政公約」之規範及人權事務委員會之意見，可茲贊成。不過在推論方式，本文認為最高法院不應只是引述條文或是籠統聲稱人權事務委員會之相關意見，而是應該參照其一般性意見、審查國家報告之結論性意見、決定個案申訴之意見。同時本文認為如果合理可預見當事人回國後會遭受死刑，法院應該不同意此引渡請求。

Domestication of the ICCPR forms triangle interaction among the Constitution, the ICCPR and laws. Although the Grand Justice considers that the death penalty does not violate the Constitution and there are many laws may impose capital punishment, the Supreme Court, by applying the ICCPR, rules that only intention to kill can be regarded as the most serious crime thereof the death penalty can be imposed. Mandatory death sentence is not allowed. No death penalty can be imposed or executed on a person suffering from any mental or intellectual disabilities. There should have sentencing debates before delivering death sentence. The author agrees with these opinions of the Supreme Court, as they comply with rules of the ICCPR and views of the Human Rights Committee. However, the author argues that the Supreme Court should not merely cite articles of the ICCPR or general views of the Human Rights Committee but to provide more comprehensive views, such as general comment, concluding observation and decision of individual application, of the Human Rights Committee. This essay also argues that courts should not agree with extradition application when a person will face the death penalty.