In Gonzalez et al. v. Mexico, a case decided by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2009, a context of discrimination and violence against women was known to target particular subgroups of women, of which the claimants were constituent, distinguished inter alia by their age, socioeconomic and, in some cases, migrant status. Despite this, the judgment of the Inter-American Court focused almost exclusively on sex discrimination and violence against women as a broader social phenomenon. With this judgment forming the background for the critique, the author will develop an anti-essentialist framework for the analysis of discrimination and violence against women claims where the discrimination was compounded by various identity factors. Intended to assist the Inter-American Court with its articulation of norms and standards in such cases, the ultimate value of this framework should be measured in terms of the assistance it can offer the Court at the reparations stage.

In Gonzalez et al. v. Mexico, a case decided by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2009, a context of discrimination and violence against women was known to target particular subgroups of women, of which the claimants were constituent, distinguished inter alia by their age, socioeconomic and, in some cases, migrant status. Despite this, the judgment of the Inter-American Court focused almost exclusively on sex discrimination and violence against women as a broader social phenomenon. With this judgment forming the background for the critique, the author will develop an anti-essentialist framework for the analysis of discrimination and violence against women claims where the discrimination was compounded by various identity factors. Intended to assist the Inter-American Court with its articulation of norms and standards in such cases, the ultimate value of this framework should be measured in terms of the assistance it can offer the Court at the reparations stage.