("black whore"). Articles 14 and 3 (procedural limb) One preliminary interesting aspect of B.S. is that two third-party interveners -- The AIRE Centre and the European Social Research Unit of the University of Barcelona -- asked the Court to recognize intersectional discrimination (see paragraphs 65 and 66). Though the Court's reasoning is short and does not use the term "intersectionality," it contains a clear intersectional approach. The Court says: To my knowledge, the Court has not yet shown much awareness of intersectional discrimination in its case law. In this regard, B.S. represents an important development. The Court is here clearly aware that the specific vulnerability of the applicant is shaped neither by her sex nor by her race alone but by the intersection of the two (with her professional status). Hence her "condition of African woman practicing prostitution" renders her vulnerable to discriminatory violence in a way different from that which women of other origins or men of African origin may experience. The Court's message in B.S. is that the Spanish State should have taken into account the specific vulnerability arising from these intersecting grounds in the investigation of the possible discriminatory motives behind the incident. True, in this case there were allegations of racist insults -- which the Court thought should have been investigated (para. 70) -- and witnesses -- whom the Court thought could have been heard (paras. 8 and 46). It is therefore unclear what weight the Court would give to this sort of intersectional vulnerability in