A/62/280 opinion or a religious belief, that conscientious objection can in itself be regarded as a form of political opinion and, more rarely, that objectors or a particular class of them can constitute a particular social group. 61. Forced conversion to a religion is a serious violation of the fundamental human right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. According to the Guidelines, forced conversions would often satisfy the objective component of persecution but the claimant would still need to demonstrate a subjective fear that the conversion would be persecutory to him or her personally, for example if he or she had a clear identity or way of life in relation to a different religion or had chosen to be disassociated from any religious denomination or community (para. 20). 62. Under the subheading “Forced compliance or conformity with religious practice” the Guidelines consider, for example, mandated religious education that is incompatible with the religious convictions, identity or way of life of the child or the child’s parents, and an obligation to attend religious ceremonies or swear an oath of allegiance to a particular religious symbol. The Guidelines state that such examples of forced compliance could amount to persecution if it becomes an intolerable interference with an individual’s own religious beliefs, identity or way of life and/or if non-compliance would result in disproportionate punishment (para. 21). 63. Individuals converting after their departure from their country of origin may have the effect of creating a refugee sur place claim. The Guidelines provide that in those circumstances particular credibility concerns tend to arise and a rigorous indepth examination of the circumstances and genuineness of the conversion will be necessary. Self-serving activities do not create a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground if the opportunistic nature of the activities will be apparent to all and serious adverse consequences would not result if the person were returned. The critical assessment is whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution at the time of the examination of the claim and what the consequences of return to the country of origin would be (paras. 34-36). The Special Rapporteur has recently emphasized (see A/HRC/6/5, para. 31) that a post-departure conversion should not give rise to a presumption that the claim is fabricated and the immigration authorities should evaluate the genuineness of the conversion on a case-by-case basis taking into account the applicant’s past and present circumstances. B. 1. Situation of persons with atheistic or non-theistic beliefs Historic overview 64. With regard to the situation of persons with atheistic or non-theistic beliefs, it is important to note that the pertinent international legal standards protect the freedom of “religion or belief”. Article 18 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for example, states that “[n]o one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice”. Furthermore, the title of the 1981 Declaration contains the phrase “religion or belief”. These legal instruments, however, do not provide any definition of those notions. 18 07-48490