Nearly a decade ago, we held in the clearest possible terms that "the public enjoys a First Amendment right to view executions from the moment the condemned is escorted into the execution chamber, including those "initial procedures" that are inextricably intertwined with the process of putting the condemned inmate to death." The State of Idaho has had ample opportunity for the past decade to adopt an execution procedure that reflects this settled law. It can hardly complain that it has been unaware of the binding precedent, since the media coalition specifically cited California First Amendment Coalition in asking the State to alter its execution procedure prior to the November 2011 execution of Paul Rhoades. The State has nonetheless failed to bring its procedure into compliance with the law—either in the days prior to the Rhoades execution or in the succeeding months, when it met with the media coalition to discuss the matter. The State has persisted in its intransigence even after we suggested at oral argument that a voluntary amendment (like the one that Arizona recently adopted) might avert the need for an injunction. The State's complaints about the last-minute nature of this litigation ignore this history. We fault the State, not the media plaintiffs, for our need to consider this question several days before an execution: the State has missed opportunity after opportunity to bring its execution procedures into compliance with the clear law of this Circuit.

Other states are under scrutiny regarding death penalty procedures, notably Ohio. In February, the US Supreme Court [official website] denied [JURIST report] Ohio's request to proceed on its execution of Charles Lorraine, a 45-year-old man who was convicted in 1986 of killing an elderly couple, because the state deviates too often from its own lethal injection standards. Executions have been stayed in Ohio since 2009. In November of last year, the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Maureen O'Connor [official profile] opened the first meeting of the state's death panel review committee which was formed [JURIST reports] in September to provide "guidance on the current laws on the subject, the practices in other jurisdictions, the data, the costs, and many other aspects associated with the death penalty."

The Obama administration has previously prosecuted leaks of classified information. The most notable instance being the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning [advocacy website; JURIST news archive] and his alleged part in transferring classified information to Wikileaks [website; JURIST news archive]. Earlier this week, a judge denied a motion to dismiss eight of the 22 charges [JURIST report] against Manning. JURIST Guest Columnist Ashley Savage argued that in light of recent leaks to the media and through the Internet, there must be more robust protections for whistleblowers [JURIST op-ed] and more effective systems for addressing their concerns internally.

We are very concerned about the safety of our staff in the absence of any contact with them. These four international civil servants have immunity when on an official ICC mission. I call on the Libyan authorities to immediately take all necessary measures to ensure their safety and security and to liberate them.

Last week a pre-trial chamber of the ICC granted a request by the Libyan government to postpone an order to transfer [JURIST report] Saif al-Islam to ICC custody. The issue of which court is going to try Saif al-Islam has been in dispute since he was captured [JURIST report] by Libyan rebel forces in November. In April ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] stated that the maximum penalty for Saif al-Islam in the ICC would be life in prison, but if convicted in a national court he could face the death penalty [JURIST report]. Earlier that month Ocampo asked the ICC to report Libya to the UN Security Council [official website] for failing to turn over Saif al-Islam. Libya expressly denied [JURIST report] the ICC's request for such action and stated that Saif al-Islam will face trial within the country. In February 2011, the UN Security Council voted unanimously to refer the matter in Libya to the ICC prosecutor [JURIST report]. The ICC claimed jurisdiction over Saif al-Islam despite its announcement in November that it may allow Libya to conduct the trial [JURIST report].

Nashiri has been at the center of controversy for many years. In November, Nashiri made his first court appearance [JURIST report] for war crimes relating to the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. In May, Nashiri's lawyers filed suit against Poland [JURIST report] over his alleged torture in that country. In September 2010, a human rights group, Open Society Justice Initiative [advocacy website], filed a request [JURIST report] with Polish prosecutors for an investigation into the detention and torture of Nashiri in a secret CIA prison.