Home International Cases J. I. v. Sweden

Human Rights Committee (ICCPR)
Key words
Article 18 ICCPR
Cases referred to
  1. S.A.H. v. Denmark
  2. J.D. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/118/D/2204/2012)
Counsel who appeared
Date of Decision
Judgement by Name of Judge/s
Noteworthy information relating to the case

No violation is recognised.

Other information

J. I. v. Sweden


Facts of the case

The author of the communication is J.I., a national of Afghanistan. He claims that his deportation to Afghanistan by the Sweden would violate his rights under articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant.

Findings related to FoRB

FoRB violation – Conscience (i.e. having or adopting a religion of one’s choice)


(1) The Committee notes the author’s claim that returning him to Afghanistan would expose him to a real risk of irreparable harm, in violation of articles 6 and 7 of ICCPR.


(2) The Committee citing S.A.H. v Denmark noted that, ‘as concerns an asylum seeker’s claim of conversion or religious conviction, the test is whether, regardless of the sincerity of the conversion or conviction, there are substantial grounds for believing that such conversion or conviction may have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin such as to create a real risk of irreparable harm, as contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.


Therefore, even when it is found that the reported conversion or conviction is not sincere, the authorities should proceed to assess whether, in the circumstances of the case, the asylum seekers behaviour and activities in connection with his or her conversion or conviction, could have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin so as to put him or her at risk of irreparable harm.’


(3) The Committee noted that the State party (Sweden) ‘took into account all the elements available when evaluating the risk of irreparable harm faced by the author upon his return to Afghanistan. The Committee also considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, he has not shown that the Migration Agency’s decision of 30 December 2015 was arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or that it amounted to a denial of justice’.