Dependency-based vulnerability derives from the inner characterics of the applicant and concerns thus minors, elderly people, as wells as physical, psychosocial and cognitive disabilities (i.e. mental illness and intellectual disability). The Court has built around these categories special requierements to be fulfilled by States as part of their obligations under the Convention.
Minors: The Court often refers to children as a paradigmatic example vulnerable people and made use of the concept of vulnerability to require States to display particular dilligence in case imposing child protection given on the one hand their reduced ability and/or willingness of complaining of ill-treatment and on the other hand their susceptability to be exposed to traumatic experiences/treatment.
Elderly: In many ways, vulnerability due to advanced age is a continuation of vulnerability of children. All humans experience dependency at the beginning of life, and many experience it near the end.
Intellectual and Psychosocial Disabilities: Intellectual disability may render those affected dependent on others – be it the state or others who provide them with support. Having regard to their special needs in exercising legal capacity and going about their lives, the Court considered that such situation were likely to attract abuse. Persons living with intellectual disabilities experiece difficulties in responding to or even protest against violations of their rights. In addition, persons with severe cognitive disabilities may experience a legal power imbalance because they do not enjoy legal capacity.

Vulnerability due to state control includes detainees, military conscripts, and persons in state institutions.
This type of vulnerability includes persons in detention, but also those who are institutionalised or otherwise under the sole authority of the state.
When people are deprived of their liberty, they are vulnerable because they depend on the authorities both to guarantee their safety and to provide them with access to essential resources like food, hygienic conditions, and health care.
In addition, the state often controls the flow of information and access to proof. Hence, the Court automatically applies the presumption of state responsibility when harm comes to those deprived of their liberty.

Vulnerability due to victimisation refers to situations in which harm is inflicted by someone else. This type of vulnerability applies to situations of domestic and sexual abuse, and other type of abuse. The Court has also found that a Convention violation may, in and of itself, render someone vulnerable.  
Crime victims who are particularly vulnerable, through the circumstances of the crime, can benefit from special measures best suited to their situation.
Sexual and domestic violence are expressions of power and control over the victim, and inflict particularly intense forms of trauma from a psychological standpoint.
Failing to recognise the suffering of the victims of sexual and domestic violence or engaging in a stigmatising response – such as, for example, the perpetuation of so-called ‘rape myths’ – represents a secondary victimisation or ‘revictimisation’ of the victims by the legal system

Vulnerability in the context of migration applies to detention and expulsion of asylum-seekers.
Applicants as asylum-seeker are considered particularly vulnerable based on the sole experience of migration and the trauma he or she was likely to have endured previously’.
The feeling of arbitrariness and the feeling of inferiority and anxiety often associated with migration as well as the profound effect conditions of detention in special centeres indubitably affect a person’s dignity.
The status of the applicants as asylum-seekers is considered to require special protection because of their underprivileged (and vulnerable) status.

Vulnerability due to discrimination and marginalisation covers ethnic, political and religious minorities, LGBTQI people, and those living with HIV/AIDS.
The Court recognises that the general situation of these groups – the usual conditions of their interaction with members of the majority or with the authorities – is particularly difficult and at odds with discriminatory attitudes.
Similarly to depency-based vulnerability, this type of vulnerability imposes special duties on states and depends not solely on the inner characteristics of applicants but also on their choices which, in most cases, states have to balance against other choices and interests.

Vulnerability due to pregnancy or situations of precarious reproductive health concerns situations in which women may find themselves in particular vulnerable situations even if the Court does not consider women vulnerable as such.
This may be due to an experience of victimisation, for example in the form of gender-based violence, or due to various contexts that particularly affect women.
Sometimes, depening on the circumstances, pregnancy may be reason enough for vulnerability while other times vulnerability is linked to the needs of the unborn children.

Vulnerability due to the espousal of unpopular views includes: demonstrators, dissidents, and journalists exposed to ill-treatment by state actors due to the espousal of unpopular views.
Where an extradition request shows that an applicant stands accused of religiously and politically motivated crimes, the Court considers this sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a member of a vulnerable group.
Similarly to the case of victimisation, it is also the applicant's choice to display such views and vulnerabilty comes from particular measures that state undertake when regulating or disregarding such choices.