This present work aims to demonstrate that the mandatory submission convicted of a crime committed, intentionally, with serious violence against person or heinous crime, to identify the genetic profile by DNA extraction - deoxyribonucleic acid, although by proper and painless technique is offensive to fundamental rights. For this purpose, it is part of the overall concept of the right to privacy, which is configured as a negative right or protection against unlawful state mismanagement, in order to protect a need or a basic right to the free individual self-determination. Then genetic intimacy is defined as an asset able to reveal the physical, psychological, behavioral and disease features, which, if disclosed or accessed without the consent of the accused, may generate stigmatization and discrimination of the subject involved, violating in this way, therefore, the right to privacy. In conclusion, we move towards emphasizing besides the right to privacy, compulsory provision of biological material to identify the genetic profile is offensive to fundamental rights to physical liberty or outpatient; physical integrity; to the freedom of religion or conscience; non-discrimination; the silence and non-production of evidences against himself, and in last instance, the biggest vector of all fundamental rights: the dignity of the human person. For the proposed objective, the research will be of an exploratory nature. As for the methodology, it was chosen the deductive method. Finally, as the procedure was adopted bibliographic as type and technique. / O presente trabalho tem por finalidade demonstrar que a submissão obrigatória de condenados por crime praticado, dolosamente, com violência de natureza grave contra pessoa, ou por crime hediondo, à identificação do perfil genético, mediante extração de DNA – ácido desoxirribonucleico, ainda que por técnica adequada e indolor, é ofensiva a direitos fundamentais. Para tanto, parte-se do conceito geral do direito à intimidade, o qual se configura como um direito negativo ou de proteção contra as ingerências ilegítimas do Estado, visto proteger uma necessidade ou um bem básico para a livre autodeterminação individual. Em seguida, define-se a intimidade genética como sendo um patrimônio capaz de revelar as características físicas, psíquicas, comportamentais e de enfermidade, que, se revelados ou acessados sem o consentimento do imputado, poderão gerar a estigmatização e descriminação do sujeito envolvido, violando-se, desse modo, o direito à intimidade. Em linhas de conclusão, caminha-se no sentido de enfatizar que além do direito à intimidade, o fornecimento compulsório de material biológico para identificação do perfil genético é ofensivo aos direitos fundamentais à liberdade física ou ambulatorial; à integridade física; à liberdade religiosa ou de consciência; a não descriminação; ao silêncio e a não produção de prova contra si mesmo, e, em última instância, ao vetor maior de todos os direitos fundamentais: a dignidade da pessoa humana. Para o desiderato proposto, a pesquisa será de cunho exploratório. Quanto à metodologia, fez-se a opção pelo método dedutivo. Por fim, quanto ao procedimento, adotou-se como tipo e técnica, o bibliográfico. / São Cristóvão, SE

Prior to 1994, citizenship was one of the pillars upon which the erstwhile government's policy of separate development rested. The concepts of citizenship and nationality were manipulated by the apartheid government to justify the denationalisation of black people and the creation of different classes of citizenship. Race, colour and language were the distinguishing features used to classify people into the different classes of citizenship. With the advent of the new constitutional order in 1994, common citizenship and the rights associated with it were restored to all South Africans. This discussion shows how in the post-1994 constitutional order citizenship has become an element of nation-building, while on the other hand it continues to perpetuate discrimination against non-citizens. The study aims to further the debate regarding the ill treatment of non-citizens with a view of influencing legislative and policy reform to replace the existing laws which are biased against no-citizens. / Law / LL.M.

Prior to 1994, citizenship was one of the pillars upon which the erstwhile government's policy of separate development rested. The concepts of citizenship and nationality were manipulated by the apartheid government to justify the denationalisation of black people and the creation of different classes of citizenship. Race, colour and language were the distinguishing features used to classify people into the different classes of citizenship. With the advent of the new constitutional order in 1994, common citizenship and the rights associated with it were restored to all South Africans. This discussion shows how in the post-1994 constitutional order citizenship has become an element of nation-building, while on the other hand it continues to perpetuate discrimination against non-citizens. The study aims to further the debate regarding the ill treatment of non-citizens with a view of influencing legislative and policy reform to replace the existing laws which are biased against no-citizens. / Law / LL.M.