The focus is put on the practice of the international bodies that monitor the execution of some of the most important international treaties for the protection of human rights. This article thus considers the practice of the UN Committee on Human Rights and of the Strasbourg jurisdictional bodies, the European Commission and Court. Even if the UN Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms contain no specific rule relating to asylum and refugee status, in the long run the case-law of these machineries have almost succeeded in filling this gap. A considerable interpretative practice is indeed available today supporting this view. This article finally evaluates the meaning of this practice compared to consolidated principles and norms of international law.