A/80/205
give no protection from persecution for reasons of religion if it was a condition that
the person affected must take steps – reasonable or otherwise – to avoid offending the
wishes of the persecutors. 70 The same point has been upheld in European Court of
Human Rights judgments 71 and emphasized by mandate holders. 72
42. In the UNHCR guidelines, it is also recognized that “individuals may be
persecuted on the basis of their religion, even though they have little or no substantive
knowledge of its tenets or practices” and that that “less formal knowledge may also
be required of someone who obtained a particular religion by birth and who has not
widely practised it”. 73 The credibility of converts is, nevertheless, often questioned 74
due to supposedly incorrect answers to questions relating to their new religion.
43. Bias and ridicule also encroach on the assessment and interview process. In the
reports submitted to the mandate holder, there are critiques of an overemphasis on
knowledge-based questions, rejection of affidavits from religious institutions as
evidence of conversion, ridicule from interviewers, sectarian influences 75 and
ignorance relating to the non-religious. 76
44. There is also little understanding of the fact that conscientious objection to
military service relates to freedom of religion or belief and that the rejection thereof
may constitute religious persecution. In the report of the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights on conscientious objection to military service,
the importance of better understanding of relevant international obligations is
highlighted, 77 and the particular challenges faced by conscientious objectors,
including the imposition of “exacting standards and burdens of proof that would
render it difficult for deserters and draft evaders for reasons of conscience to achieve
refugee status”, is acknowledged. 78
45. Special procedure mandate holders have expressed concern about deceptive and
coercive measures being used to compel refugees escaping religious persecution to
__________________
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
12/23
See www.unhcr.org/uk/media/guidelines-international-protection-no-6-religion-based-refugeeclaims-under-article-1a-2, para. 13.
See https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-139903%22]}, para. 55. The Court
of Justice of the European Union has come to a similar conclusion; see Bundesrepublik
Deutschland v. Y and Z, Joined Cases C-71/11 & C-99/11 (2012), paras. 78–80. See also
European Court of Human Rights, F.G. v. Sweden, Application No. 43611/11 (2012), para. 145.
A/HRC/6/5, para. 30; and A/67/303, para. 40.
See www.unhcr.org/uk/media/guidelines-international-protection-no-6-religion-based-refugeeclaims-under-article-1a-2, paras. 30 and 31.
Federal Court of Australia, Mashayekhi v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,
Case No. FCA 321, 22 March 2000.
See www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/religion/cfis/cfi -ga80/subm-freedomreligion-belief-cso-10-european-centre-law-justice.docx, www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/
documents/issues/religion/cfis/cfi-ga80/subm-freedom-religion-belief-cso-13-joint-submissionassociation-pr-cern.pdf, www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/religion/cfis/cfiga80/subm-freedom-religion-belief-cso-3-adf-international.docx, www.ohchr.org/sites/default/
files/documents/issues/religion/cfis/cfi-ga80/subm-freedom-religion-belief-cso-16-jointsubmission-by-international-hum-ience.docx and www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/
issues/religion/cfis/cfi-ga80/subm-freedom-religion-belief-cso-8-conscience-peace-taxinternational-onal.doc.
See www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/religion/cfis/cfi -ga80/subm-freedomreligion-belief-cso-12-humanists-uk.pdf.
See also www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/religion/cfis/cfi-ga80/submfreedom-religion-belief-cso-26-quaker-un-office.pdf.
A/HRC/56/30, para. 33.
25-11829