本文探討公民與政治權利國際公約（下稱「公政公約」）第6條第2項之解釋適用問題。公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約（即「兩公約」）已於2009年12月10日開始施行，其中，按兩公約施行法第2條：「兩公約所揭示保障人權之規定，具有國內法律之效力」以及公政公約第6條第2項：「凡未廢除死刑之國家，非犯情節最重大之罪，且依照犯罪時有效並與本公約規定及防止及懲治殘害人群罪公約不牴觸之法律，不得科處死刑。死刑非依管轄法院終局判決，不得執行。」即兩公約具國內法效力、法院科處死刑之適用限制規定。死刑之科處，於國際人權基準上有相當之要件限制。而我國最高法院100年度台上字第6851刑事判決就公政公約第6條第2項規定之解釋適用認為若符合該條項，即可進而導出「尚非不得科處死刑」此一結論，其對於公約之解釋適用是否有誤，本文即就此加以討論。

This article tries to explain and review the legal issue of the interpretation and application of ICCPR Article 6 (2), especially in the concept ＂the most serious crimes＂ from ICCPR Article 6 (2). In fact, after the implementation of ＂Act to Implement the Two Covenants＂, the judicial practice of imposition of death penalty issue still needs further study. Therefore, this paper will explain the concept ＂the most serious crimes, and fair trial＂ of ICCPR Article 6 (2) and tries to analyze and clarify the standard, change, and development of criminal judicial practice. Then, we examine the Taiwan Supreme Court Judgment Tai-Shan-Zi No.6851 (2011) by these standards. And we can find that the aforementioned judgment has totally misunderstood the interpretation and application of ICCPR Article 6 (2) in its judgment. In the last part, this paper will make some criticisms and suggestions.