This paper analyzes the relation between asylum and human rights, with a focus on the moment preceding refugee status determination, and aims to demonstrate that it is not possible to detach the contemporary concept of international refugee protection and the recognition and guarantee of human rights. The argument was developed from the hypothesis that human rights violation - for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership of a particular social group - is always the criterion to be used to determine the need of international protection. For the analysis, a qualitative research design was delineated, based on a study of international documents and discussions of some authors and international organizations and, thus, a conceptual and theorical approach about the relation between asylum and human rights was developed. The text shows that an interpretation of the 1951 Convention detached from the issue of human rights does not hold when are regarded the text, the history and context in which the contemporary international refugee regime was formulated. So, it is observed that the recognition as refugee aims, always, to repair a human rights violation: in a context in which refugee definition was not extended, that materialized in the form of persecution. Such conclusions, once they show that the contemporary concept of international protection is based on human rights considerations, imply understanding that once neglected this link it is not possible even to understand the institute of asylum and its provisions. Consequently, it is presented a theorical and conceptual framework that supports the implementation of a refugee status determination process that escapes the attempts to limit the international protection of individuals to whom the institute of asylum apply.
Asylum; International refugee regime; Human rights; Persecution; Human rights violation