An ‘Aptitude for Isolation’: Using Resilience in Dismissing the Suffering of Solitary Confinement

The concept of resilience has proven problematic for the anti-torture field (its advocates, academics and adjudicators). Although serving to duly complicate narratives that commonly pathologize victim-survivors as broken, resilience has also been co-opted to expect some to control or cope with their suffering. This article examines how the European Court of Human Rights has used resilience in its interpretation of the prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, particularly involving isolation in detention. The article finds the Court has dismissed suffering, comforted by: ‘certifications’ that certain individuals have an ‘aptitude for isolation’; presumptions that some groups should cope; calculations of mitigating factors such as contact with the outside world; and comparisons across cases. In doing so, the Court has responsibilized victims for their resilience and (failing that) their own suffering, fixed thresholds unattainably high and acted to sustain isolation-oriented practices by questionable means.