兒少人權監督平台

來源 PDF: 84_20240217113146_684695.pdf

1

United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile

Justice ("The Beijing Rules")

Adopted by General Assembly resolution 40/33 of 29 November 1985

Part one

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1. Fundamental perspectives

1.1 Member States shall seek, in conformity with their respective general interests, to further

the well-being of the juvenile and her or his family.

1.2 Member States shall endeavour to develop conditions that will ensure for the juvenile a

meaningful life in the community, which, during that period in life when she or he is most

susceptible to deviant behaviour, will foster a process of personal development and education

that is as free from crime and delinquency as possible.

1.3 Sufficient attention shall be given to positive measures that involve the full mobilization of

all possible resources, including the family, volunteers and other community groups, as well as

schools and other community institutions, for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the

juvenile, with a view to reducing the need for intervention under the law, and of effectively,

fairly and humanely dealing with the juvenile in conflict with the law.

1.4 Juvenile justice shall be conceived as an integral part of the national development process

of each country, within a comprehensive framework of social justice for all juveniles, thus, at

the same time, contributing to the protection of the young and the maintenance of a peaceful

order in society.

1.5 These Rules shall be implemented in the context of economic, social and cultural

conditions prevailing in each Member State.

1.6 Juvenile justice services shall be systematically developed and coordinated with a view to

improving and sustaining the competence of personnel involved in the services, including their

methods, approaches and attitudes.

Commentary

These broad fundamental perspectives refer to comprehensive social policy in general and aim

at promoting juvenile welfare to the greatest possible extent, which will minimize the

necessity of intervention by the juvenile justice system, and in turn, will reduce the harm that

may be caused by any intervention. Such care measures for the young, before the onset of

delinquency, are basic policy requisites designed to obviate the need for the application of the

Rules.

Rules 1.1 to 1.3 point to the important role that a constructive social policy for juveniles will

play, inter alia , in the prevention of juvenile crime and delinquency. Rule 1.4 defines juvenile

justice as an integral part of social justice for juveniles, while rule 1.6 refers to the necessity

of constantly improving juvenile justice, without falling behind the development of progressive

social policy for juveniles in general and bearing in mind the need for consistent improvement

of staff services.

Rule 1.5 seeks to take account of existing conditions in Member States which would cause the

manner of implementation of particular rules necessarily to be different from the manner

adopted in other States.

 2

2. Scope of the Rules and definitions used

2.1 The following Standard Minimum Rules shall be applied to juvenile offenders impartially,

without distinction of any kind, for example as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political

or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2.2 For purposes of these Rules, the following definitions shall be applied by Member States in

a manner which is compatible with their respective legal systems and concepts:

( a ) A juvenile is a child or young person who, under the respective legal systems, may be

dealt with for an offence in a manner which is different from an adult;

( b ) An offence is any behaviour (act or omission) that is punishable by law under the

respective legal systems;

( c ) A juvenile offender is a child or young person who is alleged to have committed or who

has been found to have committed an offence.

2.3 Efforts shall be made to establish, in each national jurisdiction, a set of laws, rules and

provisions specifically applicable to juvenile offenders and institutions and bodies entrusted

with the functions of the administration of juvenile justice and designed:

( a ) To meet the varying needs of juvenile offencers, while protecting their basic rigths;

( b ) To meet the need of society;

To implement the following rules thoroughly and fairly.

Commentary

The Standard Minimum Rules are deliberately formulated so as to be applicable within

different legal systems and, at the same time, to set some minimum standards for the

handling of juvenile offenders under any definition of a juvenile and under any system of

dealing with juvenile offenders. The Rules are always to be applied impartially and without

distinction of any kind.

Rule 2.1 therefore stresses the importance of the Rules always being applied impartially and

without distinction of any kind. The rule follows the formulation of principle 2 of the

Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

Rule 2.2 defines "juvenile" and "offence" as the components of the notion of the "juvenile

offender", who is the main subject of these Standard Minimum Rules (see, however, also rules

3 and 4). It should be noted that age limits will depend on, and are explicitly made dependent

on, each respective legal system, thus fully respecting the economic, social, political, cultural

and legal systems of Member States. This makes for a wide variety of ages coming under the

definition of "juvenile", ranging from 7 years to 18 years or above. Such a variety seems

inevitable in view of the different national legal systems and does not diminish the impact of

these Standard Minimum Rules.

Rule 2.3 is addressed to the necessity of specific national legislation for the optimal

implementation of these Standard Minimum Rules, both legally and practically.

3. Extension of the Rules

3.1 The relevant provisions of the Rules shall be applied not only to juvenile offenders but also

to juveniles who may be proceeded against for any specific behaviour that would not be

punishable if committed by an adult.

 3

3.2 Efforts shall be made to extend the principles embodied in the Rules to all juveniles who

are dealt with in welfare and care proceedings.

3.3 Efforts shall also be made to extend the principles embodied in the Rules to young adult

offenders.

Commentary

Rule 3 extends the protection afforded by the Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration

of Juvenile Justice to cover:

( a ) The so-called "status offences" prescribed in various national legal systems where the

range of behaviour considered to be an offence is wider for juveniles than it is for adults (for

example, truancy, school and family disobedience, public drunkenness, etc.) (rule 3.1);

( b ) Juvenile welfare and care proceedings (rule 3.2);

( c ) Proceedings dealing with young adult offenders, depending of course on each given age

limit (rule 3.3).

The extension of the Rules to cover these three areas seems to be justified. Rule 3.1 provides

minimum guarantees in those fields, and rule 3.2 is considered a desirable step in the

direction of more fair, equitable and humane justice for all juveniles in conflict with the law.

4 . Age of criminal responsibility

4.1 In those legal systems recognizing the concept of the age of criminal responsibility for

juveniles, the beginning of that age shall not be fixed at too low an age level, bearing in mind

the facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity.

Commentary

The minimum age of criminal responsibility differs widely owing to history and culture. The

modern approach would be to consider whether a child can live up to the moral and

psychological components of criminal responsibility; that is, whether a child, by virtue of her

or his individual discernment and understanding, can be held responsible for essentially

antisocial behaviour. If the age of criminal responsibility is fixed too low or if there is no lower

age limit at all, the notion of responsibility would become meaningless. In general, there is a

close relationship between the notion of responsibility for delinquent or criminal behaviour and

other social rights and responsibilities (such as marital status, civil majority, etc.).

Efforts should therefore be made to agree on a reasonable lowest age limit that is applicable

internationally.

5. Aims of juvenile justice

5. 1 The juvenile justice system shall emphasize the well-being of the juvenile and shall

ensure that any reaction to juvenile offenders shall always be in proportion to the

circumstances of both the offenders and the offence.

Commentary

Rule 5 refers to two of the most important objectives of juvenile justice. The first objective is

the promotion of the well-being of the juvenile. This is the main focus of those legal systems

in which juvenile offenders are dealt with by family courts or administrative authorities, but

the well-being of the juvenile should also be emphasized in legal systems that follow the

criminal court model, thus contributing to the avoidance of merely punitive sanctions. (See

also rule 14.)

 4

The second objective is "the principle of proportionality". This principle is well-known as an

instrument for curbing punitive sanctions, mostly expressed in terms of just deserts in relation

to the gravity of the offence. The response to young offenders should be based on the

consideration not only of the gravity of the offence but also of personal circumstances. The

individual circumstances of the offender (for example social status, family situation, the harm

caused by the offence or other factors affecting personal circumstances) should influence the

proportionality of the reactions (for example by having regard to the offender's endeavour to

indemnify the victim or to her or his willingness to turn to wholesome and useful life).

By the same token, reactions aiming to ensure the welfare of the young offender may go

beyond necessity and therefore infringe upon the fundamental rights of the young individual,

as has been observed in some juvenile justice systems. Here, too, the proportionality of the

reaction to the circumstances of both the offender and the offence, including the victim,

should be safeguarded.

In essence, rule 5 calls for no less and no more than a fair reaction in any given cases of

juvenile delinquency and crime. The issues combined in the rule may help to stimulate

development in both regards: new and innovative types of reactions are as desirable as

precautions against any undue widening of the net of formal social control over juveniles.

6. Scope of discretion

6.1 In view of the varying special needs of juveniles as well as the variety of measures

available, appropriate scope for discretion shall be allowed at all stages of proceedings and at

the different levels of juvenile justice administration, including investigation, prosecution,

adjudication and the follow-up of dispositions.

6.2 Efforts shall be made, however, to ensure sufficient accountability at all stages and levels

in the exercise of any such discretion.

6.3 Those who exercise discretion shall be specially qualified or trained to exercise it

judiciously and in accordance with their functions and mandates.

Commentary

Rules 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 combine several important features of effective, fair and humane

juvenile justice administration: the need to permit the exercise of discretionary power at all

significant levels of processing so that those who make determinations can take the actions

deemed to be most appropriate in each individual case; and the need to provide checks and

balances in order to curb any abuses of discretionary power and to safeguard the rights of the

young offender. Accountability and professionalism are instruments best apt to curb broad

discretion. Thus, professional qualifications and expert training are emphasized here as a

valuable means of ensuring the judicious exercise of discretion in matters of juvenile

offenders. (See also rules 1.6 and 2.2.) The formulation of specific guidelines on the exercise

of discretion and the provision of systems of review, appeal and the like in order to permit

scrutiny of decisions and accountability are emphasized in this context. Such mechanisms are

not specified here, as they do not easily lend themselves to incorporation into international

standard minimum rules, which cannot possibly cover all differences in justice systems.

7 . Rights of juveniles

7.1 Basic procedural safeguards such as the presumption of innocence, the right to be notified

of the charges, the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, the right to the presence of a

parent or guardian, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and the right to appeal

to a higher authority shall be guaranteed at all stages of proceedings.

Commentary

 5

Rule 7.1 emphasizes some important points that represent essential elements for a fair and

just trial and that are internationally recognized in existing human rights instruments (See

also rule 14.). The presumption of innocence, for instance, is also to be found in article 11 of

the Universal Declaration of Human rights and in article 14, paragraph 2, of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Rules 14 seq. of these Standard Minimum Rules specify issues that are important for

proceedings in juvenile cases, in particular, while rule 7.1 affirms the most basic procedural

safeguards in a general way.

8. Protection of privacy

8.1 The juvenile's right to privacy shall be respected at all stages in order to avoid harm being

caused to her or him by undue publicity or by the process of labelling.

8.2 In principle, no information that may lead to the identification of a juvenile offender shall

be published.

Commentary

Rule 8 stresses the importance of the protection of the juvenile's right to privacy. Young

persons are particularly susceptible to stigmatization. Criminological research into labelling

processes has provided evidence of the detrimental effects (of different kinds) resulting from

the permanent identification of young persons as "delinquent" or "criminal".

Rule 8 stresses the importance of protecting the juvenile from the adverse effects that may

result from the publication in the mass media of information about the case (for example the

names of young offenders, alleged or convicted). The interest of the individual should be

protected and upheld, at least in principle. (The general contents of rule 8 are further specified

in rule 2 1.)

9. Saving clause

9.1 Nothing in these Rules shall be interpreted as precluding the application of the Standard

Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted by the United Nations and other human

rights instruments and standards recognized by the international community that relate to the

care and protection of the young.

Commentary

Rule 9 is meant to avoid any misunderstanding in interpreting and implementing the present

Rules in conformity with principles contained in relevant existing or emerging international

human rights instruments and standards-such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the

draft convention on the rights of the child. It should be understood that the application of the

present Rules is without prejudice to any such international instruments which may contain

provisions of wider application. (See also rule 27.)

Part two

INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION

10. Initial contact

10.1 Upon the apprehension of a juvenile, her or his parents or guardian shall be immediately

notified of such apprehension, and, where such immediate notification is not possible, the

parents or guardian shall be notified within the shortest possible time thereafter.

 6

10.2 A judge or other competent official or body shall, without delay, consider the issue of

release.

10.3 Contacts between the law enforcement agencies and a juvenile offender shall be

managed in such a way as to respect the legal status of the juvenile, promote the well-being

of the juvenile and avoid harm to her or hi m, with due regard to the circumstances of the

case.

Commentary

Rule 10.1 is in principle contained in rule 92 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment

of Prisoners.

The question of release (rule 10.2) shall be considered without delay by a judge or other

competent official. The latter refers to any person or institution in the broadest sense of the

term, including community boards or police authorities having power to release an arrested

person. (See also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 9, paragraph

3.)

Rule 10.3 deals with some fundamental aspects of the procedures and behaviour on the part

of the police and other law enforcement officials in cases of juvenile crime. To "avoid harm"

admittedly is flexible wording and covers many features of possible interaction (for example

the use of harsh language, physical violence or exposure to the environment). Involvement in

juvenile justice processes in itself can be "harmful" to juveniles; the term "avoid harm" should

be broadly interpreted, therefore, as doing the least harm possible to the juvenile in the first

instance, as well as any additional or undue harm. This is especially important in the initial

contact with law enforcement agencies, which might profoundly influence the juvenile's

attitude towards the State and society. Moreover, the success of any further intervention is

largely dependent on such initial contacts. Compassion and kind firmness are important in

these situations.

11. Diversion

11.1 Consideration shall be given, wherever appropriate, to dealing with juvenile offenders

without resorting to formal trial by the competent authority, referred to in rule 14.1 below.

11.2 The police, the prosecution or other agencies dealing with juvenile cases shall be

empowered to dispose of such cases, at their discretion, without recourse to formal hearings,

in accordance with the criteria laid down for that purpose in the respective legal system and

also in accordance with the principles contained in these Rules.

11.3 Any diversion involving referral to appropriate community or other services shall require

the consent of the juvenile, or her or his parents or guardian, provided that such decision to

refer a case shall be subject to review by a competent authority, upon application.

11.4 In order to facilitate the discretionary disposition of juvenile cases, efforts shall be made

to provide for community programmes, such as temporary supervision and guidance,

restitution, and compensation of victims.

Commentary

Diversion, involving removal from criminal justice processing and, frequently, redirection to

community support services, is commonly practised on a formal and informal basis in many

legal systems. This practice serves to hinder the negative effects of subsequent proceedings in

juvenile justice administration (for example the stigma of conviction and sentence). In many

cases, non-intervention would be the best response. Thus, diversion at the outset and without

referral to alternative (social) services may be the optimal response. This is especially the case

where the offence is of a non-serious nature and where the family, the school or other

 7

informal social control institutions have already reacted, or are likely to react, in an

appropriate and constructive manner.

As stated in rule 11.2, diversion may be used at any point of decision-making-by the police,

the prosecution or other agencies such as the courts, tribunals, boards or councils. It may be

exercised by one authority or several or all authorities, according to the rules and policies of

the respective systems and in line with the present Rules. It need not necessarily be limited to

petty cases, thus rendering diversion an important instrument.

Rule 11.3 stresses the important requirement of securing the consent of the young offender

(or the parent or guardian) to the recommended diversionary measure(s). (Diversion to

community service without such consent would contradict the Abolition of Forced Labour

Convention.) However, this consent should not be left unchallengeable, since it might

sometimes be given out of sheer desperation on the part of the juvenile. The rule underlines

that care should be taken to minimize the potential for coercion and intimidation at all levels in

the diversion process. Juveniles should not feel pressured (for example in order to avoid court

appearance) or be pressured into consenting to diversion programmes. Thus, it is advocated

that provision should be made for an objective appraisal of the appropriateness of dispositions

involving young offenders by a "competent authority upon application". (The "competent

authority," may be different from that referred to in rule 14.)

Rule 11.4 recommends the provision of viable alternatives to juvenile justice processing in the

form of community-based diversion. Programmes that involve settlement by victim restitution

and those that seek to avoid future conflict with the law through temporary supervision and

guidance are especially commended. The merits of individual cases would make diversion

appropriate, even when more serious offences have been committed (for example first

offence, the act having been committed under peer pressure, etc.).

12 . Specialization within the police

12.1 In order to best fulfil their functions, police officers who frequently or exclusively deal

with juveniles or who are primarily engaged in the prevention of juvenile crime shall be

specially instructed and trained. In large cities, special police units should be established for

that purpose.

Commentary

Rule 12 draws attention to the need for specialized training for all law enforcement officials

who are involved in the administration of juvenile justice. As police are the first point of

contact with the juvenile justice system, it is most important that they act in an informed and

appropriate manner.

While the relationship between urbanization and crime is clearly complex, an increase in

juvenile crime has been associated with the growth of large cities, particularly with rapid and

unplanned growth. Specialized police units would therefore be indispensable, not only in the

interest of implementing specific principles contained in the present instrument (such as rule

1.6) but more generally for improving the prevention and control of juvenile crime and the

handling of juvenile offenders.

13 . Detention pending trial

13.1 Detention pending trial shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest

possible period of time.

13.2 Whenever possible, detention pending trial shall be replaced by alternative measures,

such as close supervision, intensive care or placement with a family or in an educational

setting or home.

 8

13.3 Juveniles under detention pending trial shall be entitled to all rights and guarantees of

the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted by the United Nations.

13.4 Juveniles under detention pending trial shall be kept separate from adults and shall be

detained in a separate institution or in a separate part of an institution also holding adults.

13.5 While in custody, juveniles shall receive care, protection and all necessary individual

assistance-social, educational, vocational, psychological, medical and physical-that they may

require in view of their age, sex and personality.

Commentary

The danger to juveniles of "criminal contamination" while in detention pending trial must not

be underestimated. It is therefore important to stress the need for alternative measures. By

doing so, rule 13.1 encourages the devising of new and innovative measures to avoid such

detention in the interest of the well-being of the juvenile.

Juveniles under detention pending trial are entitled to all the rights and guarantees of the

Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners as well as the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights, especially article 9 and article 10, paragraphs 2 ( b ) and 3.

Rule 13.4 does not prevent States from taking other measures against the negative influences

of adult offenders which are at least as effective as the measures mentioned in the rule.

Different forms of assistance that may become necessary have been enumerated to draw

attention to the broad range of particular needs of young detainees to be addressed (for

example females or males, drug addicts, alcoholics, mentally ill juveniles, young persons

suffering from the trauma, for example, of arrest, etc.).

Varying physical and psychological characteristics of young detainees may warrant

classification measures by which some are kept separate while in detention pending trial, thus

contributing to the avoidance of victimization and rendering more appropriate assistance.

The Sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of

Offenders, in its resolution 4 on juvenile justice standards, specified that the Rules, inter alia ,

should reflect the basic principle that pre-trial detention should be used only as a last resort,

that no minors should be held in a facility where they are vulnerable to the negative influences

of adult detainees and that account should always be taken of the needs particular to their

stage of development.

Part three

ADJUDICATION AND DISPOSITION

14. Competent authority to adjudicate

14.1 Where the case of a juvenile offender has not been diverted (under rule 11), she or he

shall be dealt with by the competent authority (court, tribunal, board, council, etc.) according

to the principles of a fair and just trial.

14.2 The proceedings shall be conducive to the best interests of the juvenile and shall be

conducted in an atmosphere of understanding, which shall allow the juvenile to participate

therein and to express herself or himself freely.

Commentary

It is difficult to formulate a definition of the competent body or person that would universally

describe an adjudicating authority. "Competent authority" is meant to include those who

 9

preside over courts or tribunals (composed of a single judge or of several members), including

professional and lay magistrates as well as administrative boards (for example the Scottish

and Scandinavian systems) or other more informal community and conflict resolution agencies

of an adjudicatory nature.

The procedure for dealing with juvenile offenders shall in any case follow the minimum

standards that are applied almost universally for any criminal defendant under the procedure

known as "due process of law". In accordance with due process, a "fair and just trial" includes

such basic safeguards as the presumption of innocence, the presentation and examination of

witnesses, the common legal defences, the right to remain silent, the right to have the last

word in a hearing, the right to appeal, etc. (See also rule 7.1.)

15. Legal counsel, parents and guardians

15.1 Throughout the proceedings the juvenile shall have the right to be represented by a legal

adviser or to apply for free legal aid where there is provision for such aid in the country.

15.2 The parents or the guardian shall be entitled to participate in the proceedings and may

be required by the competent authority to attend them in the interest of the juvenile. They

may, however, be denied participation by the competent authority if there are reasons to

assume that such exclusion is necessary in the interest of the juvenile.

Commentary

Rule 15.1 uses terminology similar to that found in rule 93 of the Standard Minimum Rules for

the Treatment of Prisoners. Whereas legal counsel and free legal aid are needed to assure the

juvenile legal assistance, the right of the parents or guardian to participate as stated in rule

15.2 should be viewed as general psychological and emotional assistance to the juvenile-a

function extending throughout the procedure.

The competent authority's search for an adequate disposition of the case may profit, in

particular, from the co-operation of the legal representatives of the juvenile (or, for that

matter, some other personal assistant who the juvenile can and does really trust). Such

concern can be thwarted if the presence of parents or guardians at the hearings plays a

negative role, for instance, if they display a hostile attitude towards the juvenile, hence, the

possibility of their exclusion must be provided for.

16. Social inquiry reports

16.1 In all cases except those involving minor offences, before the competent authority

renders a final disposition prior to sentencing, the background and circumstances in which the

juvenile is living or the conditions under which the offence has been committed shall be

properly investigated so as to facilitate judicious adjudication of the case by the competent

authority.

Commentary

Social inquiry reports (social reports or pre-sentence reports) are an indispensable aid in most

legal proceedings involving juveniles. The competent authority should be informed of relevant

facts about the juvenile, such as social and family background, school career, educational

experiences, etc. For this purpose, some jurisdictions use special social services or personnel

attached to the court or board. Other personnel, including probation officers, may serve the

same function. The rule therefore requires that adequate social services should be available to

deliver social inquiry reports of a qualified nature.

17. Guiding principles in adjudication and disposition

17.1 The disposition of the competent authority shall be guided by the following principles:

 10

( a ) The reaction taken shall always be in proportion not only to the circumstances and the

gravity of the offence but also to the circumstances and the needs of the juvenile as well as to

the needs of the society;

( b ) Restrictions on the personal liberty of the juvenile shall be imposed only after careful

consideration and shall be limited to the possible minimum;

( c ) Deprivation of personal liberty shall not be imposed unless the juvenile is adjudicated of a

serious act involving violence against another person or of persistence in committing other

serious offences and unless there is no other appropriate response;

( d ) The well-being of the juvenile shall be the guiding factor in the consideration of her or his

case.

17.2 Capital punishment shall not be imposed for any crime committed by juveniles.

17.3 Juveniles shall not be subject to corporal punishment.

17.4 The competent authority shall have the power to discontinue the proceedings at any

time.

Commentary

The main difficulty in formulating guidelines for the adjudication of young persons stems from

the fact that there are unresolved conflicts of a philosophical nature, such as the following:

( a ) Rehabilitation versus just desert;

( b ) Assistance versus repression and punishment;

( c ) Reaction according to the singular merits of an individual case versus reaction according

to the protection of society in general;

( d ) General deterrence versus individual incapacitation.

The conflict between these approaches is more pronounced in juvenile cases than in adult

cases. With the variety of causes and reactions characterizing juvenile cases, these

alternatives become intricately interwoven.

It is not the function of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice

to prescribe which approach is to be followed but rather to identify one that is most closely in

consonance with internationally accepted principles. Therefore the essential elements as laid

down in rule 17.1, in particular in subparagraphs (a) and (c), are mainly to be understood as

practical guidelines that should ensure a common starting point; if heeded by the concerned

authorities (see also rule 5), they could contribute considerably to ensuring that the

fundamental rights of juvenile offenders are protected, especially the fundamental rights of

personal development and education.

Rule 17.1 ( b ) implies that strictly punitive approaches are not appropriate. Whereas in adult

cases, and possibly also in cases of severe offences by juveniles, just desert and retributive

sanctions might be considered to have some merit, in juvenile cases such considerations

should always be outweighed by the interest of safeguarding the well-being and the future of

the young person.

In line with resolution 8 of the Sixth United Nations Congress, rule 17.1 ( b ) encourages the

use of alternatives to institutionalization to the maximum extent possible, bearing in mind the

need to respond to the specific requirements of the young. Thus, full use should be made of

the range of existing alternative sanctions and new alternative sanctions should be developed,

 11

bearing the public safety in mind. Probation should be granted to the greatest possible extent

via suspended sentences, conditional sentences, board orders and other dispositions.

Rule 17.1 ( c ) corresponds to one of the guiding principles in resolution 4 of the Sixth

Congress which aims at avoiding incarceration in the case of juveniles unless there is no other

appropriate response that will protect the public safety.

The provision prohibiting capital punishment in rule 17.2 is in accordance with article 6,

paragraph 5, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The provision against corporal punishment is in line with article 7 of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from

Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

as well as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment and the draft convention on the rights of the child.

The power to discontinue the proceedings at any time (rule 17.4) is a characteristic inherent in

the handling of juvenile offenders as opposed to adults. At any time, circumstances may

become known to the competent authority which would make a complete cessation of the

intervention appear to be the best disposition of the case.

18. Various disposition measures

18.1 A large variety of disposition measures shall be made available to the competent

authority, allowing for flexibility so as to avoid institutionalization to the greatest extent

possible. Such measures, some of which may be combined, include:

( a ) Care, guidance and supervision orders;

( b ) Probation;

( c ) Community service orders;

( d ) Financial penalties, compensation and restitution;

( e ) Intermediate treatment and other treatment orders;

( f ) Orders to participate in group counselling and similar activities;

( g ) Orders concerning foster care, living communities or other educational settings;

( h ) Other relevant orders.

18.2 No juvenile shall be removed from parental supervision, whether partly or entirely,

unless the circumstances of her or his case make this necessary.

Commentary

Rule 18.1 attempts to enumerate some of the important reactions and sanctions that have

been practised and proved successful thus far, in different legal systems. On the whole they

represent promising opinions that deserve replication and further development. The rule does

not enumerate staffing requirements because of possible shortages of adequate staff in some

regions; in those regions measures requiring less staff may be tried or developed.

The examples given in rule 18.1 have in common, above all, a reliance on and an appeal to

the community for the effective implementation of alternative dispositions. Community-based

correction is a traditional measure that has taken on many aspects. On that basis, relevant

authorities should be encouraged to offer community-based services.

 12

Rule 18.2 points to the importance of the family which, according to article 10, paragraph l, of

the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, is "the natural and

fundamental group unit of society". Within the family, the parents have not only the right but

also the responsibility to care for and supervise their children. Rule 18.2, therefore, requires

that the separation of children from their parents is a measure of last resort. It may be

resorted to only when the facts of the case clearly warrant this grave step (for example child

abuse).

19. Least possible use of institutionalization

19.1 The placement of a juvenile in an institution shall always be a disposition of last resort

and for the minimum necessary period.

Commentary

Progressive criminology advocates the use of non-institutional over institutional treatment.

Little or no difference has been found in terms of the success of institutionalization as

compared to non-institutionalization. The many adverse influences on an individual that seem

unavoidable within any institutional setting evidently cannot be outbalanced by treatment

efforts. This is especially the case for juveniles, who are vulnerable to negative influences.

Moreover, the negative effects, not only of loss of liberty but also of separation from the usual

social environment, are certainly more acute for juveniles than for adults because of their

early stage of development.

Rule 19 aims at restricting institutionalization in two regards: in quantity ("last resort") and in

time ("minimum necessary period"). Rule 19 reflects one of the basic guiding principles of

resolution 4 of the Sixth United Nations Congress: a juvenile offender should not be

incarcerated unless there is no other appropriate response. The rule, therefore, makes the

appeal that if a juvenile must be institutionalized, the loss of liberty should be restricted to the

least possible degree, with special institutional arrangements for confinement and bearing in

mind the differences in kinds of offenders, offences and institutions. In fact, priority should be

given to "open" over "closed" institutions. Furthermore, any facility should be of a correctional

or educational rather than of a prison type.

20. Avoidance of unnecessary delay

20.1 Each case shall from the outset be handled expeditiously, without any unnecessary delay.

Commentary

The speedy conduct of formal procedures in juvenile cases is a paramount concern. Otherwise

whatever good may be achieved by the procedure and the disposition is at risk. As time

passes, the juvenile will find it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to relate the procedure

and disposition to the offence, both intellectually and psychologically.

21. Records

21.1 Records of juvenile offenders shall be kept strictly confidential and closed to third parties.

Access to such records shall be limited to persons directly concerned with the disposition of

the case at hand or other duly authorized persons.

21.2 Records of juvenile offenders shall not be used in adult proceedings in subsequent cases

involving the same offender.

Commentary

The rule attempts to achieve a balance between conflicting interests connected with records or

files: those of the police, prosecution and other authorities in improving control versus the

 13

interests of the juvenile offender. (See also rule 8.) "Other duly authorized persons" would

generally include, among others, researchers.

22. Need for professionalism and training

22.1 Professional education, in-service training, refresher courses and other appropriate

modes of instruction shall be utilized to establish and maintain the necessary professional

competence of all personnel dealing with juvenile cases.

22.2 Juvenile justice personnel shall reflect the diversity of juveniles who come into contact

with the juvenile justice system. Efforts shall be made to ensure the fair representation of

women and minorities in juvenile justice agencies.

Commentary

The authorities competent for disposition may be persons with very different backgrounds

(magistrates in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and in regions

influenced by the common law system; legally trained judges in countries using Roman law

and in regions influenced by them; and elsewhere elected or appointed laymen or jurists,

members of community-based boards, etc.). For all these authorities, a minimum training in

law, sociology, psychology, criminology and behavioural sciences would be required. This is

considered as important as the organizational specialization and independence of the

competent authority.

For social workers and probation officers, it might not be feasible to require professional

specialization as a prerequisite for taking over any function dealing with juvenile offenders.

Thus, professional on-the job instruction would be minimum qualifications.

Professional qualifications are an essential element in ensuring the impartial and effective

administration of juvenile justice. Accordingly, it is necessary to improve the recruitment,

advancement and professional training of personnel and to provide them with the necessary

means to enable them to properly fulfil their functions.

All political, social, sexual, racial, religious, cultural or any other kind of discrimination in the

selection, appointment and advancement of juvenile justice personnel should be avoided in

order to achieve impartiality in the administration of juvenile justice. This was recommended

by the Sixth Congress. Furthermore, the Sixth Congress called on Member States to ensure

the fair and equal treatment of women as criminal justice personnel and recommended that

special measures should be taken to recruit, train and facilitate the advancement of female

personnel in juvenile justice administration.

Part four

NON-INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT

23. Effective implementation of disposition

23.1 Appropriate provisions shall be made for the implementation of orders of the competent

authority, as referred to in rule 14.1 above, by that authority itself or by some other authority

as circumstances may require.

23.2 Such provisions shall include the power to modify the orders as the competent authority

may deem necessary from time to time, provided that such modification shall be determined

in accordance with the principles contained in these Rules.

Commentary

 14

Disposition in juvenile cases, more so than in adult cases, tends to influence the offender's life

for a long period of time. Thus, it is important that the competent authority or an independent

body (parole board, probation office, youth welfare institutions or others) with qualifications

equal to those of the competent authority that originally disposed of the case should monitor

the implementation of the disposition. In some countries, a juge de l'exécution des peines has

been installed for this purpose.

The composition, powers and functions of the authority must be flexible; they are described in

general terms in rule 23 in order to ensure wide acceptability.

24 . Provision of needed assistance

24.1 Efforts shall be made to provide juveniles, at all stages of the proceedings, with

necessary assistance such as lodging, education or vocational training, employment or any

other assistance, helpful and practical, in order to facilitate the rehabilitative process.

Commentary

The promotion of the well-being of the juvenile is of paramount consideration. Thus, rule 24

emphasizes the importance of providing requisite facilities, services and other necessary

assistance as may further the best interests of the juvenile throughout the rehabilitative

process.

25. Mobilization of volunteers and other community services

25.1 Volunteers, voluntary organizations, local institutions and other community resources

shall be called upon to contribute effectively to the rehabilitation of the juvenile in a

community setting and, as far as possible, within the family unit.

Commentary

This rule reflects the need for a rehabilitative orientation of all work with juvenile offenders.

Co-operation with the community is indispensable if the directives of the competent authority

are to be carried out effectively. Volunteers and voluntary services, in particular, have proved

to be valuable resources but are at present underutilized. In some instances, the co-operation

of ex-offenders (including ex-addicts) can be of considerable assistance.

Rule 25 emanates from the principles laid down in rules 1.1 to 1.6 and follows the relevant

provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Part five

INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT

26. Objectives of institutional treatment

26.1 The objective of training and treatment of juveniles placed in institutions is to provide

care, protection, education and vocational skills, with a view to assisting them to assume

socially constructive and productive roles in society.

26.2 Juveniles in institutions shall receive care, protection and all necessary assistance-social,

educational, vocational, psychological, medical and physical-that they may require because of

their age, sex, and personality and in the interest of their wholesome development .

26.3 Juveniles in institutions shall be kept separate from adults and shall be detained in a

separate institution or in a separate part of an institution also holding adults.

 15

26.4 Young female offenders placed in an institution deserve special attention as to their

personal needs and problems. They shall by no means receive less care, protection,

assistance, treatment and training than young male offenders. Their fair treatment shall be

ensured.

26.5 In the interest and well-being of the institutionalized juvenile, the parents or guardians

shall have a right of access.

26.6 Inter-ministerial and inter-departmental co-operation shall be fostered for the purpose of

providing adequate academic or, as appropriate, vocational training to institutionalized

juveniles, with a view to ensuring that they do no leave the institution at an educational

disadvantage.

Commentary

The objectives of institutional treatment as stipulated in rules 26.1 and 26.2 would be

acceptable to any system and culture. However, they have not yet been attained everywhere,

and much more has to be done in this respect.

Medical and psychological assistance, in particular, are extremely important for

institutionalized drug addicts, violent and mentally ill young persons.

The avoidance of negative influences through adult offenders and the safeguarding of the well-

being of juveniles in an institutional setting, as stipulated in rule 26.3, are in line with one of

the basic guiding principles of the Rules, as set out by the Sixth Congress in its resolution 4.

The rule does not prevent States from taking other measures against the negative influences

of adult offenders, which are at least as effective as the measures mentioned in the rule. (See

also rule 13.4.)

Rule 26.4 addresses the fact that female offenders normally receive less attention than their

male counterparts. as pointed out by the Sixth Congress. In particular, resolution 9 of the

Sixth Congress calls for the fair treatment of female offenders at every stage of criminal

justice processes and for special attention to their particular problems and needs while in

custody. Moreover, this rule should also be considered in the light of the Caracas Declaration

of the Sixth Congress, which, inter alia , calls for equal treatment in criminal justice

administration, and against the background of the Declaration on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Discrimination against Women.

The right of access (rule 26.5) follows from the provisions of rules 7.1, 10.1, 15.2 and 18.2.

Inter-ministerial and inter-departmental co-operation (rule 26.6) are of particular importance

in the interest of generally enhancing the quality of institutional treatment and training.

27. Application of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

adopted by the United Nations

27.1 The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and related

recommendations shall be applicable as far as relevant to the treatment of juvenile offenders

in institutions, including those in detention pending adjudication.

27.2 Efforts shall be made to implement the relevant principles laid down in the Standard

Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners to the largest possible extent so as to meet the

varying needs of juveniles specific to their age, sex and personality.

Commentary

The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners were among the first instruments

of this kind to be promulgated by the United Nations. It is generally agreed that they have had

 16

a world-wide impact. Although there are still countries where implementation is more an

aspiration than a fact, those Standard Minimum Rules continue to be an important influence in

the humane and equitable administration of correctional institutions.

Some essential protections covering juvenile offenders in institutions are contained in the

Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (accommodation, architecture,

bedding, clothing, complaints and requests, contact with the outside world, food, medical care,

religious service, separation of ages, staffing, work, etc.) as are provisions concerning

punishment and discipline, and restraint for dangerous offenders. It would not be appropriate

to modify those Standard Minimum Rules according to the particular characteristics of

institutions for juvenile offenders within the scope of the Standard Minimum Rules for the

Administration of Juvenile Justice.

Rule 27 focuses on the necessary requirements for juveniles in institutions (rule 27.1) as well

as on the varying needs specific to their age, sex and personality (rule 27.2). Thus, the

objectives and content of the rule interrelate to the relevant provisions of the Standard

Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

28. Frequent and early recourse to conditional release

28.1 Conditional release from an institution shall be used by the appropriate authority to the

greatest possible extent, and shall be granted at the earliest possible time.

28.2 Juveniles released conditionally from an institution shall be assisted and supervised by an

appropriate authority and shall receive full support by the community.

Commentary

The power to order conditional release may rest with the competent authority, as mentioned

in rule 14.1, or with some other authority. In view of this, it is adequate to refer here to the

"appropriate" rather than to the "competent" authority.

Circumstances permitting, conditional release shall be preferred to serving a full sentence.

Upon evidence of satisfactory progress towards rehabilitation, even offenders who had been

deemed dangerous at the time of their institutionalization can be conditionally released

whenever feasible. Like probation, such release may be conditional on the satisfactory

fulfilment of the requirements specified by the relevant authorities for a period of time

established in the decision, for example relating to "good behaviour" of the offender,

attendance in community programmes, residence in half-way houses, etc.

In the case of offenders conditionally released from an institution, assistance and supervision

by a probation or other officer (particularly where probation has not yet been adopted) should

be provided and community support should be encouraged.

29. Semi-institutional arrangements

29.1 Efforts shall be made to provide semi-institutional arrangements, such as half-way

houses, educational homes, day-time training centres and other such appropriate

arrangements that may assist juveniles in their proper reintegration into society.

Commentary

The importance of care following a period of institutionalization should not be underestimated.

This rule emphasizes the necessity of forming a net of semi-institutional arrangements.

This rule also emphasizes the need for a diverse range of facilities and services designed to

meet the different needs of young offenders re-entering the community and to provide

 17

guidance and structural support as an important step towards successful reintegration into

society.

Part six

RESEARCH, PLANNING, POLICY FORMULATION AND EVALUATION

30. Research as a basis for planning, policy formulation and evaluation

30.1 Efforts shall be made to organize and promote necessary research as a basis for effective

planning and policy formulation.

30.2 Efforts shall be made to review and appraise periodically the trends, problems and causes

of juvenile delinquency and crime as well as the varying particular needs of juveniles in

custody.

30.3 Efforts shall be made to establish a regular evaluative research mechanism built into the

system of juvenile justice administration and to collect and analyse relevant data and

information for appropriate assessment and future improvement and reform of the

administration.

30.4 The delivery of services in juvenile justice administration shall be systematically planned

and implemented as an integral part of national development efforts.

Commentary

The utilization of research as a basis for an informed juvenile justice policy is widely

acknowledged as an important mechanism for keeping practices abreast of advances in

knowledge and the continuing development and improvement of the juvenile justice system.

The mutual feedback between research and policy is especially important in juvenile justice.

With rapid and often drastic changes in the life-styles of the young and in the forms and

dimensions of juvenile crime, the societal and justice responses to juvenile crime and

delinquency quickly become outmoded and inadequate.

Rule 30 thus establishes standards for integrating research into the process of policy

formulation and application in juvenile justice administration. The rule draws particular

attention to the need for regular review and evaluation of existing programmes and measures

and for planning within the broader context of overall development objectives.

A constant appraisal of the needs of juveniles, as well as the trends and problems of

delinquency, is a prerequisite for improving the methods of formulating appropriate policies

and establishing adequate interventions, at both formal and informal levels. In this context,

research by independent persons and bodies should be facilitated by responsible agencies, and

it may be valuable to obtain and to take into account the views of juveniles themselves, not

only those who come into contact with the system.

The process of planning must particularly emphasize a more effective and equitable system for

the delivery of necessary services. Towards that end, there should be a comprehensive and

regular assessment of the wide-ranging, particular needs and problems of juveniles and an

identification of clear-cut priorities. In that connection, there should also be a co-ordination in

the use of existing resources, including alternatives and community support that would be

suitable in setting up specific procedures designed to implement and monitor established

programmes.

來源 PDF: 84_20240217121903_8762782.pdf

北京規則

《聯合國少年司法最低限度標準規則》

（北京規則）

聯合國大會1985年11月29日第40/33號決議通過

第一部分 總則

1. 基本觀點

1.1 會員國應在符合各自整體利益的前提下，致力於促進少年及其家庭的

福祉。

1.2 會員國應努力創造條件，確保少年在社區中能過上有意義的生活，並

在其一生中最易出現偏差行為的時期，使其成長和受教育的過程盡可

能不受犯罪和觸法行為（delinquency）的影響。

1.3 應充分關注並採取積極措施，調動所有可能的資源，包括家庭、志工、

其他社區團體、學校及社區機構，以促進少年的福祉，減少法律介入

的需求，並在少年觸犯法律時，採用有效、公正及合乎人道的方式進

行處理。

1.4 在針對所有少年的全面社會正義框架下，少年司法應被視為每個國家

發展過程中不可或缺的一環。同時，它有助於保護年輕人並維護社會

的和平秩序。

1.5 應依據每個會員國的經濟、社會和文化的情況來執行本規則。

1.6 少年司法服務應被系統性的發展和協調，以提升和維持參與服務人員的能

力，包括他們的方法、途徑和態度。

說明

這些廣泛的基本觀點涉及整體社會政策，旨在盡可能促進少年的福

1

 北京規則

祉，從而最小化少年司法體系介入的必要，進而降低任何介入可能帶來的

傷害。在青少年發生觸法行為之前所採取的照顧措施是一項基本政策措施，

旨在降低需要使用本規定的必要性。

規則1.1至1.3說明了有建設性的少年社會政策所扮演的重要角色，尤其

在預防司法少年和觸法行為方面的重要作用。規則1.4將少年司法定義為少

年社會正義中不可或缺的一環；而規則1.6則談到持續改進少年司法的必要

性，不能落後於對少年進行的漸進社會政策的發展，同時謹記需要不斷提

升工作人員服務的一致性。

規則1.5旨在考慮會員國現有的條件，這將使會員國對特定規則的實施

方式與其他國家有所不同。

2. 規則的範圍和採用的定義

2.1 下列最低限度標準規則應公平適用於司法少年，不應有任何差別對待，

例如種族、膚色、性別、語言、宗教、政治或其他主張、國籍或社會

出身、財產、出生或其他身分地位。

2.2 為了本規則的目的，會員國應在符合本國司法體系和概念的情況下應

用下列定義：

(a) 少年係指按照各國司法體系，對其違法行為（offence）以不同於成

年人的方式進行處理的兒童或年輕人；

(b) 違法行為係指在各國司法體系下，依據法律可能會受到懲罰的任

何行為（作為或不作為）；

(c) 司法少年係 指被指控有違法行為或被判定犯有違法行為的兒童或

年輕人。

2.3 應努力在每個國家的司法體系中，建立一套專門適用於司法少年及負

責執行少年司法行政職能機構的法律、規則和條款，旨在：

(a) 滿足司法少年的不同需求，同時保護他們的基本權利；

2

 北京規則

(b) 滿足社會的需求；

(c) 徹底和公正地實施以下規則。

說明

本最低限度標準規則是經過深思熟慮後制定的，目的是使其適用於

不同的司法體系。同時，這些規則旨在為處理司法少年設定一些最低標

準，不論是在任何對少年的定義下，還是在任何處理司法少年的體系下。

實施本規則時應始終保持公正，不得有任何形式的差別。

因此 ， 規則 2.1強調 了 規則的應用 應該 是公正的， 且 不得 有 任何 形

式的差別。該規則是基於《兒童權利宣言》第二條的原則而制定。

規則2.2定義了「少年」和「違法行為」是「司法少年」概念的組成部

分，而「司法少年」是本最低限度標準規則的主要對象（另見規則3和規則

4）。應注意的是年齡限制取決於各國的司法體系，因此需充分尊重會員國

的經濟、社會、政治、文化和司法體系。這導致了「少年」的定義涵蓋了

各種年齡，範圍從7歲到18歲或以上。有鑒於各國不同的司法體系，這樣的

多樣性似乎是不可避免的，但這並不會削弱本最低限度標準規則的影響。

規則2.3強調了在法律和實務層面上，實施本最低限度標準規則的最佳

方式是制訂具體的國家法律。

3. 規則應用範圍的擴大

3.1 本規則的相關規定不僅適用於司法少年，還適用於因成年人不會受罰

的某些行為而可能被追究責任的少年。

3.2 應致力將本規則所體現的原則擴大到所有在福利和照顧程序中的少年。

3.3 還應致力將本規則擴大體現到年輕的成年罪犯。

說明

規則3擴大了《聯合國少年司法最低限度標準規則》規定的保護範圍，

3

 北京規則

包括：

(a) 各國法律制度中所稱的「身分犯」，被視為少年的違法行為的範圍

較成年人更廣，例如逃學、在學校和家庭不服管教、公共場所酗酒

等（規則3.1）；

(b) 少年福利和照顧程序（規則3.2）；

(c) 處理年輕的成年罪犯的程序，取決於每個特定的年齡限制（規則

3.3）。

將本規則的應用範圍擴大到上述三個領域似乎是合理的。規則3.1在這

些領域提供了最低限度的保障。而規則3.2則被視為邁向對所有司法少年提

供更為公正、公平和人道司法待遇的理想一步。

4. 刑事責任年齡

4.1 在那些承認少年刑事責任年齡概念的司法體系中，最低年齡不應設定

得太低，應考慮到少年的情感、心智和智力成熱的情況。

說明

由於歷史和文化的原因，少年負擔刑事責任的最低年齡差別很大。現

代的做法是考慮一個兒童是否能達到負擔刑事責任的道德和心理要素，即

兒童是否能夠憑藉其辨識和理解能力對基本的反社會行為負責。如果將刑

事責任的年齡規定得太低或根本沒有年齡限制的下限，則責任概念就會失

去意義。一般而言，觸法行為或犯罪行為的責任概念與其他社會權利和責

任（例如婚姻狀態、法定年齡等）密切相關。

因此，應努力達成國際上都適用的合理最低年齡限度的共識。

5. 少年司法的目的

5.1 少年司法體系應強調少年的福祉，並應確保對司法少年作出的任何反

4

 北京規則

應均應與罪犯和違法行為的具體情況呈比例。

說明

規則5涉及少年司法的兩個最重要的目標。第一個目標是促進少年的

福祉。這是由家事法院或行政機構處理司法少年的司法體系的主要焦點，

但在遵循刑事法院模式的司法體系也應重視少年的福祉，從而避免只採用

懲罰性的制裁（亦參考規則14）。

第二個目標是「比例原則」。此一原則作為限制採取懲罰性制裁的工

具而廣為人知，主要依據對違法行為的嚴重性來確定應得的懲罰。決定制

裁時不僅應考慮違法行為的嚴重程度，也應考慮司法少年的個人狀況。犯

罪者的個人狀況（例如社會地位、家庭狀況、犯罪造成的傷害或其他影響

個人狀況的因素）應該影響反應的比例，例如考慮到司法少年為賠償受害

者而做出的努力，或注意到其願意過上健康和有益生活。

同樣地，為了確保司法少年的福祉而採取的反應可能超過必要範圍，

因而侵害了少年的基本權利的狀況，已在一些少年司法體系中被觀察到。

在這方面，應確保對司法少年 、違法行為和受害者的情況所作出的反應是

合理且符合比例的。

實質上，規則5要求的正是在任何司法少年和違法行為的案件中作出公

正的反應。該規則中結合的問題可能有助於促進以下兩方面的發展：需要

新穎和創新的反應形式，也需要防止不當擴大社會對少年的控制措施。

6. 自由裁量的範圍

6.1 有鑒於少年不同的特殊需求，以及可以採取的措施眾多，應在司法程

序的各階段和不同層級的少年司法行政中，允許適度地自由裁量範圍，

包括調查、起訴、裁定和後續處置。

6.2 然而，在行使此類自由裁量時，應儘量確保在各階段和層級都需要充

5

 北京規則

分承擔責任。

6.3 行使自由裁量權的人應具有特殊的資格或接受相應的培訓，以在符合

他們職能和任務要求下明智地行使該權力。

說明

規則6.1至規則6.3結合了有效、公正與人道的少年司法行政的幾個重

要特點：有必要允許在各個重要階段中行使自由裁量權，以便決策者能夠

在個別案例中採取被認為最適當的行動；同時，有必要提供制衡原則，以

遏止對自由裁量權的濫用，並保障司法少年的權利。責任制度和專業素養

是最適合用來限制自由裁量權擴張的工具。因此，在處理司法少年事務時，

強調專業資格和專業培訓是確保自由裁量權被明智行使地一種寶貴的手段

（另見規則1.6和規則2.22）。在此脈絡中，特別強調了制定有關行使自由

裁量權的具體指南，以及提供審查及上訴等制度，以便對決策進行詳細檢

視並確保責任制度。這些機制在此未具體列明，因為在國際最低限度標準

規則中很難納入這些內容，而這些規則也不可能包括所有司法體系的差異。

7. 少年的權利

7.1 在各個階段應確保基本的程序保障，如無罪推定、告知被控罪行的權

利、緘默權、辯護權、有父母或監護人在場的權利、與證人對質和交

互詰問的權利，以及向更高層機關上訴的權利。

說明

規則7.1強調了一些重要觀點，這些觀點代表著公正審判的基本元素，

並且在現有的人權文獻中得到了國際承認（見規則14）。例如在《世界人

權宣言》第11條和《公民與政治權利國際公約》第14條第2項中，都有推

定無罪的內容。

規則14及其後的規則具體指出在審理司法少年的案件時需要特別關注

6

 北京規則

的問題，而規則7.1則是以一般性的方式確認了最基本的程序保障。

8. 隱私保護

8.1 應在各個階段尊重少年的隱私權，以避免因過度宣傳或標籤化的過程

對其造成傷害。

8.2 原則上，不應公開可能識別司法少年的資訊。

說明

規則8強調保護少年隱私權的重要性。年輕人特別容易受到污名化的

影響。犯罪學對標籤化過程的研究提供了有關將年輕人永久貼上「觸法行

為」或「司法少年」的標籤，所產生的（各種不同的）負面影響的證據。

規則8還強調了保護少年免受可能因在大眾媒體上公開有關案件的資

訊而帶來的負面影響（例如被指控或定罪的司法少年的姓名）。司法少年

的個人利益應至少在原則上受到保護和維護（規則8的一般性內容在規則

21中有進一步的說明）。

9. 保留條款

9.1 本規則的任何內容皆不得被解釋為排除聯合國所通過的《囚犯待遇最

低限度標準規則》，以及國際社會所承認的與年輕人照顧和保護有關

的人權文獻和標準。

說明

規則9的目的是為了避免在解釋和執行本規則時產生任何誤解，並符

合現有或新興的國際人權文獻和標準中包含的原則，例如《世界人權宣

言》、《經濟社會文化權利國際公約》、《公民與政治權利國際公約》、

《兒童權利宣言》及《兒童權利公約草案》。應理解本規則的實施不損及

7

 北京規則

可能包含更廣泛適用條款的任何此類國際文獻的權益（見規則27）。

第二部分 調查和起訴

10. 初步接觸

10.1 在逮捕少年時，應立通知其父母或監護人相關逮捕情況，若無法立

即通知，即應在最短時間內通知父母或監護人。

10.2 法官或其他主管機關應不拖延考慮釋放的事宜。

10.3 執法機關與司法少年之間的接觸應在充分考慮案件具體情況的前提

下，以尊重少年的法律地位、促進少年的福祉，以及避免對其造成

傷害為原則。

說明

規則10.1原則上已包含在《囚犯待遇最低限度標準規則》第92條中。

法官或其他主管機關應立即考慮釋放事宜（規則10.2）。後者廣義的

指有權釋放被逮捕者的社區委員會或警察機關內的個人或機構（另請參閱

《公民與政治權利國際公約》第9條第3項）。

規 則 10.3涉及警察和其他執法人員在處理司法少年時的某些基本程序

和行為。「避免傷害」的措辭較靈活，涵蓋了許多可能互相影 響 的 特 徵

（例如惡言相向、肢體暴力或環境影響）。參與少年司法程序本身可能對

少年造成「傷害」，因此，「避免傷害」一詞應被廣義地解釋，即在初步

接觸時，應盡可能降低對少年的傷害，以及避免任何額外或不當的傷害。

這在少年與執法機關的初步接觸中尤為重要，可能深刻影響少年對國家和

社會的態度。而且任何進一步的介入是否成功，很大程度上取決於這些初

步的接觸。在此情況下，同理心和溫和堅定的態度極為重要的。

11. 轉向制度（diversion）

8

 北京規則

11.1 應酌情考慮在盡可能不提交規則14.1中提到的主管機關正式審判的

情況下處理司法少年。

11.2 應授予權限給警察、檢察官或其他處理少年案件的機構，依據各自

司法體系中為此目的設定的標準，以及符合本規則所載原則，自行

處理這類案件，無需訴諸正式的聽證程序。

11.3 任何涉及把司法少年轉介到適當社區或其他服務的轉向制度應徵得

少年、其父母或監護人的同意，前提是此種轉介的決定應在提出申

請後經過主管機關的審查。

11.4 為了促進對司法少年的自由裁量權，應致力提供社區方案，如臨時

監督和指導，以及對受害者的賠償等。

說明

轉向制度是指將個體從刑事司法程序中移除，並且轉向社區支持服務

的一種制度，已在許多司法體系中普遍以正式和非正式的方式實施。此制

度能夠防止後續司法程序對少年的負面影響（例如定罪和判刑的污名化）。

許多時候，不介入可能是最佳對策。因此最初就採取轉向制度，而不是轉

介到其他（社會）服務可能是最理想的因應方式。這尤其適用於犯罪行為

較輕微，並且家庭、學校或其他非官方的機構已經或可能會以適當及有建

設性的方式作出反應的情況。

規則11.2指出轉向制度可以由警察、檢察官或其他機構（例如法院、

仲裁庭、委員會、評議會等）在決策的任何階段實施。由一個、多個或所

有相關機構依據各自的規則和政策，並遵循本規則來施行。轉向制度不限

於犯罪性質較輕的案件，因此能夠成為一種重要的工具。

規則11.3強調取得司法少年、其父母或監護人對轉向措施的同意的重

要性（未經同意就轉向社區服務，將違反《強迫或強制勞動公約》）。然

而，這種同意不應該被視為不可挑戰的，因為少年可能是出於非常絕望或

9

 北京規則

無助的情況下才同意的。該規則強調為了將強迫或恐嚇的潛在可能性降到

最低，在轉向制度的各個層面都需要謹慎處理。少年不應在受到壓力（例

如為了避免出庭）或被迫同意的情況下接受轉向計畫。因此，建議設立一

個機制，由主管機關在接獲申請後對司法少年的處遇進行客觀評估，以確

保處遇的適當性（「主管機關」可能與規則14所提到的機構不同）。

規則11.4建議提供具體可行的替代方案，以取代正式司法程序，例如

社區轉向計畫。特別推崇以賠償受害者來解決問題的計畫，以及透過臨時

監督和指導以避免未來觸法的計畫。依據案件的個別情況會影響轉向制度

的適用性，即使犯下較嚴重的罪行也是如此（例如初犯、受到同儕壓力

等）。

12. 警察內部的專業化

12.1 為了最有效的履行職能，經常或專門處理少年事務以及主要從事預

防司法少年案件的警察皆應接受特殊指導和培訓。在大城市裡，應

為此目的設立特殊的警察部門。

說明

規則12強調對參與少年司法的所有執法人員進行專業訓練的必要性。

由於警察是少年進入司法體系的第一個接觸者，因此他們在行事上的明智

與適當是極為重要的。

雖然都市化與犯罪之間的關係複雜，但是司法少年的案件增加可能與

大城市的發展存在某種關聯，特別是受到城市快速和無計畫發展的影響。

因此，建立專門的警察部門對於實施本規則中的具體原則（如規則1.6）至

關重要，並且有助於預防和控制司法少年案件的發生，以及與處理司法少

年案件的效能。

13. 審前拘留（detention pending trial）

10

 北京規則

13.1 拘留應僅作為最後的手段，且時間應儘量縮短。

13.2 如有可能，應採取替代性措施，例如密切監管、加強關懷或安置在

家庭、教育機構或住所內。

13.3 被拘留的少年有權享有聯合國所通過的《囚犯待遇最低限度標準規

則》的所有權利和保障。

13.4 被拘留的少年應與成年人分開，並應安置在單獨的機構，或同時容

納成年人機構的獨立區域內。

13.5 在拘留期間，少年應接受照顧、保護，以及依據其年齡、性別和個

性，提供一切必要的個別協助，包括社會、教育、職業、心理、醫

療和生理方面的支持。

說明

在拘留期間，不應低估少年面臨「犯罪污染」的危險性。因此，強調

替代性措施是極為重要的。透過這種方式，規則13.1鼓勵制定新穎且創新

的措施，維護少年的福祉並避免對少年進行拘留。

被拘留的少年享有《囚犯待遇最低限制標準規則》以及《公民與政治

權利國際公約》的所有權利和保障，特別是第9條、第10條第2項b款，以

及第10條第3項的規範。

規則13.4並未阻止各國針對成年罪犯的負面影響採取除了本規則提及

之外的其他措施。

規則13.5列舉了可能必要的各種不同的協助方式，目的在引起人們注

意需要解決受拘留少年的特定需求（例如女性或男性、藥物成癮、酗酒、

心理疾病、因被逮捕而受到創傷的年輕人等）。

由於在生理和心理方面的差異，少年在被拘留時可能需要採取分類措

施，使一些人在拘留期間保持分開的狀態，以避免少年成為受害者，同時

也能提供更適切的協助。

11

 北京規則

第六屆聯合國預防犯罪和罪犯待遇大會在關於少年司法標準的第4號

決議中明確指出這些規則反映出一項基本原則，即「拘留」僅作為最後手

段使用，不應將任何少年拘留在可能受到成年罪犯負面影響的設施中，並

應考慮到符合少年發展階段的特定需求。

第三部分 審判和處置

14. 審判的主管機關

14.1 若司法少年的案件未被轉向其他處置方式（依據規則11），則該案

應由主管機關（法院、仲裁庭、委員會、評議會等）依據公平公正

的審判原則來處理。

14.2 審判程序應有利於少年的最佳利益，並在一種理解的氛圍中進行，

使少年能夠參與並自由地表達自己的意見。

說明

很難找到一個普遍適用的定義去描述裁決機構的主管機關或個人。

「主管機關」應包括主持法院或仲裁庭的人（由一名或多名成員組成），

也包括專業和非專業的法官、行政委員會（如蘇格蘭和斯堪地那維亞的制

度），或是其他較非正式但具有裁決性質的社區和衝突解決機構。

在處理司法少年的任何程序時，皆應遵守普遍適用於任何被告的最低

限度標準，此程序被稱為「正當法律程序」。依據正當法律程序，一個

「公平公正的審判」應包括基本的保護措施，例如無罪推定、證人的陳述

和訊問、一般的法律辯護權、緘默權、在聽證會上有最後發言權（the last

word in a hearing），以及上訴權等（另見規則7.1）。

15. 法律顧問、父母和監護人

12

 北京規則

15.1 在整個法律程序中，少年有權由法律顧問代表，或在該國提供免費

法律扶助的情況下申請該項扶助。

15.2 父母或監護人有權參與法律程序，主管機關也可能為了維護少年的

利益而要求他們出席。然而，如果有理由認為排除他們的參與才符

合少年利益，則主管機關可以拒絕其參與。

說明

規則15.1使用與《囚犯待遇最低限度標準規則》第93條類似的術語。

雖然法律顧問和免費法律扶助對確保少年獲得法律協助至關重要，但應該

將規則15.2所述父母或監護人的參與也被視為對少年的一種心理和情感上的

支持，這是在整個法律程序中都持續發揮作用的功能。

當主管機關試圖找出適當的方法來處理案件時，可能會特別從少年的

法定代理人（或是少年真正信賴的個人助理）的合作中獲益。但如果父母

或監護人的出席對聽證會產生了負面效果，例如對少年表現出敵意的態度，

則可能會阻礙這種合作的進展，因此在此情況下應考慮排除其參與的可能

性。

16. 社會調查報告

16.1 在主管機關作出最終判決前，對於涉微罪以外的案件，應對少年的

背景、環境及違法行為發生的條件進行調查，以便作出明智的裁決。

說明

社會調查報告（又稱社會報告或審前調查報告）在多數司法少年的法

律程序中是不可或缺的輔助工具。主管機關應被告知少年的相關資訊，例

如社會和家庭背景、學業歷程、教育經歷等。為此，一些司法管轄單位

（jurisdictions）使用了與法院或委員會有關的特殊社會服務或專業人員。

其他人員也可以履行相同的職能，例如緩行監督官。因此，本規則要求提

13

 北京規則

供足夠的社會服務，以便製作專業且合格的社會調查報告。

17. 裁定（adjudication）和處置的指導原則

17.1 主管機關的處置應受以下原則指導：

(a) 採取的措施應當與犯罪的情況和嚴重 程度成比例，同時應考慮

到少年的需求與社會的需要；

(b) 對少年個人自由的限制應經過慎重考慮，並且應限制在最低限

度內；

(c) 除非裁定少年有涉及對他人使用暴力或持續犯下其他嚴重罪行

的情況，且無其他合適的應對措施，否則不得剝奪其個人自由；

(d) 在考慮少年的案件時，應將其福祉視為主要指導原則。

17.2 不得對少年犯下的任何罪行判處死刑；

17.3 不得對少年施行體罰；

17.4 主管機關有權隨時中止法律程序。

說明

制定司法少年裁定指導原則的主要困難來自於一些未解決的哲學性衝

突，例如：

(a) 改過向善vs. 罪有應得；

(b) 協助vs. 壓制和懲罰；

(c) 依據個別案件的獨特性作出反應vs.依據保護整體社會的需要作出反

應；

(d) 一般性嚇阻理論（general deterrence）vs. 剝奪個體自由（individual

incapacitation）。

在少年案件中，這些方法之間的衝突比成人案件更加明顯。由於少年

案件涉及多種原因和反應，使得這些選擇和方法變得錯綜複雜。

14

 北京規則

《聯合國少年司法最低限度標準規則》的功能並非規定應該遵循哪種

辦法，而是要確定一種與國際上公認的原則最接近的方法。因此，依據規

則17.1明確規定的要素，特別是 (a) 款與 (c) 款，基本上應視為能確保有共

同出發點的實用指導原則；如果這些原則得到主管機關的重視（另見規則

5），則可以在很大的程度上有助於確保司法少年的基本權利，特別是個

人發展和受教育的基本權利。

規則17.1(b) 暗示採用嚴厲懲罰的方法並不適當。在成人案件和某些嚴

重的少年案件中，可能會認為給予應得的懲罰和報復性制裁有一定的合理

性，但在少年案件中，應優先考慮保障少年的福祉與其未來。

依據第六屆聯合國大會的第8號決議，規則17.1(b) 考慮到為了滿足少

年的具體需求，因此鼓勵盡可能採用非監禁的替代方案。因此，考慮到公

共安全，應充分利用現有的替代性處置和發展新的替代性處置。且應盡可

能透過緩期執行判決、有條件判決、委員會裁定和其他相關處置來宣告緩

刑。

規則17.1(c) 符合第六屆大會第4號決議的其中一項指導原則，旨在避

免對少年判處監禁，除非沒有其他適當辦法可以保護公共安全。

規則17.2禁止死刑的條文符合《公民與政治權利國際公約》第6條第5

項規定。

反對體罰的條文符合《公民與政治權利國際公約》第7條、《保護人

人不受酷刑和其他殘忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或處罰宣言》、《禁止

酷刑及其他殘忍不人道或有辱人格之待遇或處罰公約》，以及《兒童權利

公約》草案。

不同於成年罪犯，有隨時終止法律程序的權力（規則17.4）是處理司

法少年案件的特點。主管機關在任何時候都可能得知一些新的情況，因此

當下處理案件最好的辦法就是完全停止介入。

18. 各種處置措施

15

 北京規則

18.1 主管機關應提供多樣的處置措施，以確保有足夠的靈活性，最大程

度地避免機構化。這些措施可以結合使用，包括：

(a) 照顧、指導和監督；

(b) 緩刑；

(c) 社區服務；

(d) 罰款、補償和賠償；

(e) 中期治療和其他治療；

(f) 參加團體諮商和類似活動；

(g) 安排寄養、居住社區或其他教育環境；

(h) 其他相關裁決。

18.2 除非少年的案情有特殊需要，否則不應將其部分或完全地從父母或

監護人的監督中移除。

說明

規則18.1試圖列舉在不同的司法體系中被實行並證實有效的重要反應

和處置。整體來說，它們是有展望、值得效法和進一步發展的方法。本規

則沒有對人力編制提出要求，因為在某些地區可能缺乏足夠人力；在這些

地區，可以嘗試或發展需要較少人力的措施。

規則18.1所提供的例子最重要的共同點是依賴和呼籲社區有效的實施

替代性處遇。以社區為基礎的改造是一種傳統辦法，現在已有多種形式。

在這個基礎上，應鼓勵主管機關提供社區導向的服務。

規則18.2強調了家庭的重要性，依據《經濟社會文化權利國際公約》

第10條第1項，家庭是「社會之自然基本團體單位」。在家庭中，父母不

僅有權利，而且有責任照顧和監督其子女。因此，規則18.2要求把孩子與

父母分開被視為是最後的手段。只有在案件明確顯示有必要採取此一的重

大步驟時（例如兒童虐待），才能採取這種措施。

16

 北京規則

19. 儘量少用收容機構

19.1 把少年安置在收容機構中應是最後的手段，且須為最短之必要時

間。

說明

進步犯罪學（progressive criminology）主張採用非機構收容安置，而

不是機構收容安置。相對於非機構安置，機構安置在取得預期效果上幾乎

沒有差異，或者差異非常小。在任何機構環境中，似乎不可避免地會對個

體產生許多負面影響；這些負面影響明顯無法透過處置而抵銷。對少年來

說，這種情況尤其明顯，因為他們容易受到負面影響。此外，由於少年正

處於發展的早期階段，失去自由的負面影響以及與正常社會環境分離等，

對他們所產生的影響程度明顯比成年人更為嚴重。

規則19的目的是從兩個方面去限制機構收容安置：數量上（最後手段）

與時間上（最短之必要時間）。規則19反映了第六屆聯合國大會第4號決

議的一項基本指導原則：除非沒有其他適當的應對方式時，否則不應將司

法少年監禁。因此，本規則呼籲若必須將少年送入機構，則應極力限制其

失去自由的程度，並特別考慮對監禁提供特殊的機構安排，同時注意司法

少年的類型、違法行為，以及不同機構之間的差異。同時應優先考慮「開

放式」機構而非「封閉式」機構。此外，任何設施均應是矯正性或教育性

的，而非監獄類型。

20. 避免不必要的延遲

20.1 每起案件從開始就應該被迅速處理，不應有不必要的延遲。

說明

17

 北京規則

在處理少年案件時，迅速進行正式司法程序是被特別被關注的重點。

否則在任何程序和裁定上可能獲得的好處都將面臨風險。隨著時間的推移，

少年在理智和心理上就愈來愈難以把司法程序和處置連同違法行為聯繫起

來。

21. 檔案

21.1 對於司法少年的檔案應嚴格保密，不得對第三方開放。能夠查閱這

些檔案的人，應僅限於涉及案件處理或其他經過授權的人員。

21.2 司法少年的檔案不得在其後的成人訴訟中加以引用。

說明

本規則試圖在與紀錄或檔案相關的利益之間取得平衡，一方是警察、

檢察官和其他主管機關希望提高對案件的控制，而另一方則是攸關司法少

年的權益（請參閱規則8）。「其他經過授權的人員」通常包括研究人員

在內。

22. 專業與培訓的必要性

22.1 應利用專業教育、在職培訓、進修課程以及其他適當的教學方式，

使所有處理少年案件的人員具備並維持所須的專業能力。

22.2 少年司法人員的組成應反映出少年司法體系的多元性。應努力確保

婦女和少數群體在少年司法機構中的公平代表性。

說明

處理案件的主管機關可能由不同背景的人組成（在英國及北愛爾蘭地

區，以及受英美法系影響的地區，可能是治安法官；在使用大陸法系的國

家及受其影響的地區，可能是經過法律培訓的法官；在其他地方，可能是

18

 北京規則

當地選舉或指派的非法學或法學家、社區委員會的成員等）。所有人員都

需要接受最基礎的法學、社會學、心理學、犯罪學以及行為科學的培訓。

人員的培訓被視為與主管機關的組織專業化和獨立性同等重要。

對於社工和緩刑官（probation officers）而言，要求他們在處理司法少

年相關的工作前就具備專業能力是不可行的。因此，在職專業培訓應為最

低的資格條件。

專業資格是確保公正有效地執行少年司法的一個重要因素。因此，有

必要改進人員的招聘、晉升和專業培訓制度，並為其提供必要的手段，讓

他們能正確地履行其職能。

在遴選、任命、晉升少年司法人員時，應避免政治、社會、性別、種

族、宗教、文化或其他形式的歧視，以便在少年司法工作中保持公 正。

這是由聯合國第六屆大會所建議的。此外，該屆大會還呼籲會員國應給予

女性刑事司法工作人員公平公正的待遇，並建議採取特別措施來招聘、

培訓和促進女性在少年司法工作中的晉升。

第四部分 非機構處遇

23. 處置的有效執行

23.1 為執行上述規則14.1所提到的主管機關的命令，應制定適當的規定，

由該機關或視情況由其他機構執行。

23.2 此類規定應包含主管機關有隨時修改命令的權力，其前提是須要遵

從本規則所涵蓋的原則來決定修改。

說明

相較於成年案件，少年案件的處置安排更有可能對司法少年的一生產

生長期影響。因此，重要的是原本裁定案件的主管機關或具有同樣資格的

獨立機關（例如假釋委員會、緩刑辦公室、青少年福利機構等）應監督處

19

 北京規則

置的執行。某些國家為了此目的設立了刑罰執行法官（juge de l’exécution

des peines）。

主管機關的組成、權限和職能必須具有靈活性；規則23對它們進行了

大致的說明，以使其能被廣泛接受。

24. 提供必要的協助

24.1 在司法程序的各個階段，應該盡力提供少年所需的協助，例如住宿、

教育或職業培訓、就業或其他有幫助且實際的協助，以促進更生過

程（rehabilitative process）。

說明

增進少年的福祉是最首要考量。因此，規則24強調在更生過程中提供

必要的設施、服務以及其他協助，以進一步促進少年的最佳利益。

25. 動員志工和其他社區服務

25.1 應呼籲志工、志工組織、當地機構以及其他社區資源，有效參與在

社區環境中進行少年更生的工作，且盡可能在家庭中實施。

說明

本規則反映了在處理司法少年的所有工作皆需要以更生為導向。要有

效的實施主管機關的指導方針，與社區的合作是不可或缺的。志工與志願

服務已被證明是非常寶貴的資源，但目前尚未得到充分利用。在某些情況

下，與前科犯（包括戒毒者）的合作可能可以提供相當大的幫助。

本規則是依據規則1.1至規則1.6所制訂的原則，並遵循《公民與政治權

利國際公約》的相關規定。

20

 北京規則

第五部分 機構性處遇

26. 機構性處遇的目的

26.1 對機構安置少年進行培訓和處遇的目標是提供照顧、保護、教育和

職業技能，以幫助他們在社會中擔任具有建設性和生產性的角色。

26.2 機構安置少年應獲得依其年齡、性別和個性所需的照顧、保護以及

各種必要的協助，包括社會、教育、職業、心理、醫療和身體 等方

面，以促進他們的健全發展。

26.3 機構安置少年應與成年人分開，並應安置在單獨的機構，或同時容

納成年人機構的獨立區域內。

26.4 應特別關注機構安置少女的個人需要和問題。她們應得到的照顧、

保護、協助、處遇和培訓的程度不應該低於少年。並且需要確保她

們受到公平的對待。

26.5 為了機構安置少年的利益和福祉，父母或監護人應有權探望他們。

26.6 為了提供機構安置少年足夠的知識或適當的職業培訓，應鼓勵跨部

門之間的合作，以確保他們在離開機構時在教育上不會處於不利狀

態。

說明

規則26.1與規則26.2所規定的機構性處遇的目標應能被任何體制和文化

所接受。但這些目標尚未在各地被廣泛的實現，對此仍需進一步的努力。

對機構中有藥物成癮、暴力傾向，以及患有精神疾病的少年，提供醫

療和心理上的協助是極為重要的。

正如規則26.3，透過避免受到成年罪犯的負面影響並在機構環境中保障

少年的福祉，該內涵符合第六屆大會的第4號決議中的規定，也與本規則的

一項基本指導原則相符。這條規則不禁止各國採取其他措施來對抗成年罪

21

 北京規則

犯的負面影響，只要這些措施至少與本規則中所提之措施同樣有效（另見

規則13.4）。

規則26.4是針對第六屆大會所指出的女性罪犯通常獲得的關注較男性罪

犯少的現象做出相應處理。特別是第六屆大會的第9號決議呼籲在各個刑事

司法程序的階段都要公正對待女性罪犯，並對她們在拘留期間提出的特殊

問題和需要給予特別關注。此外，還應依據第六屆大會的《卡拉卡斯宣言》

的背景下考慮本規則，該宣言在刑事司法中呼籲給予平等待遇，也應該考

量《消除對對婦女歧視宣言》和《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》的背景。

探視權（規則26.5）是依據規則7.1、規則10.1、規則15.2及規則18.2的

規定而來的。跨部門間的合作（規則26.6）對普遍提高機構性處遇和培訓品

質尤其重要。

27. 聯合國所通過的《囚犯待遇最低限度標準規則》的適用

27.1 在適用範疇內，聯合國《囚犯待遇最低限度標準規則》和相關建議

將適用於機構中的司法少年，包括在等待審判期間被拘留的人。

27.2 應盡最大的努力執行《囚犯待遇最低限度標準規則》所規定的 相關

原則，以便依據司法少年的年齡、性別和個性，滿足他們不同的需

求。

說明

《囚犯待遇最低限度標準規則》是聯合國最早頒布的此類文件之一。

該規則已普遍被認為在全世界產生了重要影響。儘管仍有一些國家在執行

上，大多體現出一種期望而非實際情況，但是該規則對矯正機構的人道和

公正管理仍產生重要的影響。

《囚犯待遇最低限度標準規則》包括對一些機構中的司法少年的基本

保護措施（住宿、建築、寢具、衣服、申訴和請求、與外界聯繫、食物、

22

 北京規則

醫療照護、宗教服務、年齡分離、人員配置、工作等），還包括相關懲罰、

紀律以及管束危險罪犯的規定。依據《聯合國少年司法最低限度標準規

則》，因安置司法少年機構的特點而去修改最低限度標準規則是不適當的。

規則27聚焦於安置機構少年的必要需求（規則27.1），以及依據其年齡、

性別和個性的不同需求（規則27.2）。因此，本規則的目標和內容與《囚犯

待遇最低限度標準規則》的相關規定相互關聯。

28. 頻繁且儘早採用假釋辦法

28.1 機構的假釋應由適當的管理機關最大程度地採用，同時應在最短時

間內予以批准。

28.2 適當的管理機關應對從機構假釋的少年給予協助和監督，並應得到

社區的全面支持。

說明

如規則14.1所述，有權下令進行假釋的權力可能歸屬主管機關或其他機

關 。有鑒於 此 ， 本 規則 使 用「 適當的 」（appropriate ）而 非 「主 管的」

（competent）更為適當。

如果情況允許，應優先考慮假釋，而非服滿刑期。只要有良好的更生

進展證據，即使在收容時被認為危險的罪犯，也可以在可允許的情況下獲

准假釋。與緩刑類似，這種釋放可能取決於罪犯須在判決所訂的一段時間

內滿足相關機構規範的要求，例如，罪犯的「行為良好」、參加社區計畫

或居住在中途之家等。

從機構中獲得假釋的罪犯，應由一名緩刑官或其他人員（尤其是尚未

採用緩刑的地方）給予協助和監督，並應鼓勵社區的支持。

29. 半機構性安排

29.1 應努力提供協助少年適當融入社會的半機構性安排，例如中途之家、

23

 北京規則

教養機構以及日間培訓中心等。

說明

不應低估在機構化期間後提供照顧的重要性。本規則強調建立半機構

性安排的必要性。

本規則也強調有必要提供各種不同的設施和服務，以滿足司法少年重

返社會的各種需要，並且把提供指導和結構上的支持作為重新融入社會的

重要步驟。

第六部分 研究、規劃、政策制定和評估

30. 以研究為基礎的規劃、政策制定和評估

30.1 應努力組織和促進必要的研究，作為有效規劃和制定政策的基礎。

30.2 應努力定期進行審查和評估少年觸法行為和犯罪的趨勢、問題和原

因，同時關注被拘留少年不同的特殊需求。

30.3 應努力在少年司法管理體系中建立一個定期的評估性研究機制，收

集和分析相關數據和資料，以進行適當的評估，並為未來改善和改

革管理體系提供參考。

30.4 在少年司法管理中提供的服務應被視為國家發展努力的一部分，需

要進行系統性的規劃和實施。

說明

人們普遍承認，將研究作為制定一項有依據的少年司法政策的基礎，

是確保實踐和知識的進步，以及持續發展和改進少年司法體系的重要機制。

少年司法領域中，研究和政策之間的相互回饋尤其重要的。在年輕人

的生活方式發生迅速且劇烈的變化以及少年犯罪形式和範疇改變的情況下，

社會和司法對待少年犯罪和觸法行為的反應變得過時和不足。

24

 北京規則

因此，規則30建立了少年司法管理中將研究納入政策制定和應用過程

的標準。該規則強調需要對現行計畫和措施進行定期評估和審查，以及在

更廣泛的整體發展目標下進行規劃。

不論是在正式還是非正式的層面上，對少年的需求與觸法行為的趨勢

和問題的持續評估，是改進制定適當政策和建立充分介入方法的先決條件。

在這個脈絡下，負責機構應協助進行由獨立個體和機構所進行的研究，從

中獲得並考慮到少年本身的意見可能是有價值的，而不僅侷限於那些與體

制接觸的人。

在規劃過程中，必須特別強調更有效且公平地提供必要服務的系統。

為此，應對少年廣泛而特殊的需要和問題進行全面且定期的評估，同時確

定明確的優先事項。在此過程中，還需要協調利用現有資源，包括制定適

當的替代方案和社區支持，以建立特定程序來實施和監督既有的方案。

25