In this article I analyse women asylum seekers' claims of gendered ill-treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I argue that the European Court of Human Rights moves away from creating equal conditions of protection for women asylum seekers every time it adopts two modes of reasoning: under scrutinizing the gendered roots of risk of ill-treatment and over scrutinizing individual capacity to deal with the risk. The first mode of reasoning overlooks the social and institutional conditions that render women vulnerable to ill-treatment. The second mode over emphasizes a woman's ability to protect herself and/or male relatives' capacity to protect her. The two modes suggest that women asylum seekers risk ill-treatment because of personal failures/limits rather than socio-institutional failures/constraints. These modes of reasoning may oversimplify concrete risks and recreate women's subordinate status in human rights discourse. To counter these faults, in this article I propose to reappraise the risk of gendered ill-treatment structurally and relationally.

中文翻译：

---

《欧洲人权公约》对女性寻求庇护者的保护：挖掘性别伤害的根源

在本文中，我分析了女性寻求庇护者根据《欧洲人权公约》第 3 条提出的性别虐待的主张。我认为，欧洲人权法院每次采用两种推理模式时，都不再为女性寻求庇护者创造平等的保护条件：对虐待风险的性别根源进行审查不足，以及对个人处理问题的能力进行过度审查。风险。第一种推理模式忽略了使妇女容易受到虐待的社会和制度条件。第二种模式过度强调女性保护自己的能力和/或男性亲属保护她的能力。这两种模式表明，女性寻求庇护者因个人失败/限制而不是社会制度失败/限制而面临虐待风险。这些推理模式可能会过度简化具体风险，并在人权话语中重新塑造妇女的从属地位。为了解决这些错误，在本文中，我建议从结构上和关系上重新评估性别虐待的风险。