On March 23, 2016, the European Court of Human Rights ruled [3] that Swedish authorities must evaluate the consequences of an Iranian citizen’s conversion to Christianity before refusing his claim for asylum and removing him to Iran. According to the press release [4], F.G. is an Iranian citizen, who arrived in Sweden in 2009 and claimed asylum, arguing that he had been politically active in Iran in opposition to the regime and had fled the country after being summoned before the Revolutionary Court. In his application, he mentioned his conversion to Christianity, but did not rely on it as grounds for asylum. Swedish authorities eventually rejected his claim, finding that his political involvement had been low-level and noting that he had not received new summons and his family members in Iran had not been harassed by authorities. After receiving notice of the denial of his claim, F.G. filed for a stay of deportation, noting that his conversion to Christianity was a new circumstance which should be taken into consideration. Regarding F.G.’s claim that he would be at risk if he returned to Iran due to his past political activities, the Court agreed with the Swedish authorities’ assessment that there was no evidence to suggest he would face reprisals by the Iranian regime. Addressing F.G.’s conversion to Christianity, the Court found that Swedish authorities had not considered it a “new circumstance,” and had thus “never made an assessment of the risk that F.G. could encounter, as a result of his conversion, upon returning to Iran.” The Court further found that the authorities had not evaluated “the seriousness of his beliefs, the way he manifested his Christian faith in Sweden, or how he intended to manifest it in Iran if the removal order were to be executed,” which was incompatible with Swedish authorities’ “obligation—given the absolute nature of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention [5]—to make a fresh assessment, of their own motion, of all the information brought to their attention before taking a decision on his removal to Iran.” Therefore, the Court ruled that Sweden would violate the Convention if it removed F.G. to Iran without a new assessment taking into account all the circumstances of his situation.