公民與政治權利國際公約第14條的公平審判權規定，可以說是與內國刑事程序關連最密切之條款，自《公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約》（以下簡稱兩公約）施行法於2009年施行生效後，兩公約就正式具有國內法效力。關於解釋公約的法源及方法，兩公約施行法第3條規定：「適用兩公約規定，應參照其立法意旨及兩公約人權事務委員會之解釋。」據此，兩公約人權規定及其相關解釋，包括審查國家報告之結論性觀察意見，都是我國兩公約施行法第3條所稱必須參照的「解釋」，也是正式的法源依據。據此，法官適用我國刑事訴訟法時，應以「合乎公約之內國法解釋」作為指導原則，以免內國刑事訴訟法牴觸公政公約。本文自2015年最高法院刑事裁判中，選擇與公約第14條公平審判條款密切相關之議題進行評釋，此些議題分別為：1、媒體預斷與無罪推定；2、對質詰問與例外法則；3、隔別訊問與被告缺席審判。藉此，闡釋公約內國法化的基本觀點，並簡評裁判與兩公約程序要求之落差，以檢視兩公約施行6年後，我國刑事訴訟法與國際人權法的接軌情況。

The right to a fair trial, article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, can be said as the most closely connected article with domestic criminal procedure. After ＂Act to Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereafter the two Covenants)＂ promulgated in 2009, human rights protection provisions in the two Covenants have domestic legal status. With regard to the interpretation of the Covenants, Art. 3 of the Act, applications of the two Covenants should make reference to their legislative purposes and interpretations by the Human Rights Committee, and since the interpretations made by European Court of Human Rights were frequently referred to Human Rights Committee, the article also takes a notice of the judgments and decisions from the Court. This article pays attention to the statutes of ICCPR and its concluding observations which closely related to criminal procedures so as to examine the judicial practice on its implementations. Aiming at examining domesticalization of international human rights instruments, the article focuses on three topics: 1. Preliminary hearing by the press and presumption of innocence; 2. Cross-examination and exceptions of corss-examination; 3. The ex parte verdict that order the defendant to leave the court and examine separately. Each of the three topics will be analyzed in the light of its theoretical and practical aspect and finishes with a separate conclusion.