This article explores the boundaries encountered by women fleeing domestic violence in countries located outside the Council of Europe (‘CoE’) when claiming non-refoulement before the Strasbourg Court. The main argument is that these boundaries are embedded in the different standards the Court applies in its Article 3 ECHR case law. To develop this argument, the article conducts an exemplary critical analysis of A.A. and Others v. Sweden in comparison with, firstly, Opuz v. Turkey and secondly, Othman v. UK. The first comparison exposes a territorial bias in the case law. It shows that the risk assessment is much more lenient in cases of women seeking international protection in CoE Member States, than in cases of women who suffer domestic violence within their CoE home States. The second comparison reveals a gender bias in the jurisprudence of different types of non-refoulement cases. The assessment of available protection from an established risk is separately assessed in cases of men fleeing harm from State actors, but not in cases of women escaping ‘private’ harm. As a result, migrant women’s rights are limited by two intersecting and mutually reinforcing inequalities – both as migrants and as women. Taken together, these biases make the purportedly absolute prohibition of torture as laid down in Article 3 ECHR malleable in respect of migrant women. In order to respond to these dissonances, the article suggests a reformulation of the real risk assessment in migrant women’s cases: It should consist in a two-step assessment, establishing first the risk and then the available protection, and be guided by due diligence standards.

中文翻译：

---

普遍性的界限——斯特拉斯堡法院审理的移民妇女和家庭暴力

本文探讨了在欧洲委员会 (“CoE”) 以外的国家逃离家庭暴力的妇女在斯特拉斯堡法院要求不驱回时遇到的界限。主要论点是，这些界限嵌入在法院在其《欧洲人权公约》第 3 条判例法中适用的不同标准中。为了发展这一论点，本文对 AA 和其他人诉瑞典案进行了典型的批判性分析，并与奥普兹诉土耳其案和奥斯曼诉英国案进行比较。第一个比较暴露了判例法中的地域偏见。它表明，与在 CoE 母国遭受家庭暴力的妇女相比，在 CoE 成员国寻求国际保护的妇女的风险评估要宽松得多。第二个比较揭示了不同类型的不驱回案件的判例中的性别偏见。在男性逃离国家行为者伤害的情况下，单独评估针对既定风险的可用保护，但不评估女性逃避“私人”伤害的情况。因此，移民妇女的权利受到两个相互交叉和相互加强的不平等——无论是作为移民还是作为妇女——的限制。综上所述，这些偏见使得《欧洲人权公约》第 3 条规定的据称绝对禁止酷刑的规定对移民妇女具有可塑性。为了应对这些不一致，文章建议重新制定移民妇女案件中的实际风险评估：它应该包括两步评估，首先确定风险，然后确定可用的保护，