The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area–Background Paper 2019 Bucklew’s rare medical condition and the risk of severe pain during execution his sentence should be commuted.118 However, Justice Gorsuch delivered the Supreme Court decision rejecting Bucklew’s claim that executing him by means of lethal injection would violate the Eighth Amendment. Bucklew preferred to be executed by nitrogen hypoxia considering the rare medical condition he suffers.119 Gorsuch wrote: “What does all this tell us about how the Eighth Amendment applies to methods of execution? For one thing, it tells us that the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death—something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.”120 According to the majority opinion, Bucklew failed to show that nitrogen hypoxia was readily implementable or that this execution method would be significantly less painful than pentobarbital.121 The four dissenting judges objected to differing parts of the majority opinion, especially highlighting that the requirement for inmates to provide guidance on the administration of an alternate method (nitrogen hypoxia in this case) presents an “insurmountable hurdle.”122 This is in line with many opinions by legal scholars, represented in an amicus curiae brief, who agree that it is too restrictive to reject alternative methods of execution because they are not immediately available or because they are not authorised by state law.123 Media outlets published op-ed pieces making the case that this Supreme Court judgement 118  “IACHR Concludes that the United States Violated Russell Bucklew’s Fundamental Rights, that His Execution Should Not Proceed and His Sentence Should be Commuted”, OAS website, 19 March 2018, <http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2018/054.asp>. 119  “Death row inmates not guaranteed ‘painless’ execution, US Supreme Court says”, Reuters, 1 April 2019, <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-execution-idUSKCN1RD2J5>. 120  Bucklew v. Precythe, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, et al, Supreme Court of the United States, 1 April 2019, p. 12, <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-8151_1qm2.pdf>. 121  “Supreme Court Update: Bucklew v. Pettigrew (No 17-8151), Biestek v. Berryhill (No. 17-1184), Lorenzo v. SEC (No. 17-1077), Sturgeon v. Frost (No. 17-949)”, The National Law Review, 9 April 2019, <https://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-update-bucklew-v-pettigrew-no-17-8151-biestek-v-berryhill-no-17-1184>; “The Supreme Court rules that a murderer has no right to a “painless death””, The Economist, 2 April 2019, <https:// www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/04/02/the-supreme-court-rules-that-a-murderer-has-noright-to-a-painless-death>. 122  Bucklew v. Precythe, op. cit., note 120, p. 14. 123  Brief of Scholars and of academics of constitutional law as Amicus Curiae in support of petitioner, “On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit”, 23 July 2018, p. 3, <https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-8151/55160/20180723163457496_No.%20%2017-8151%20Bucklew%20v%20 Precythe%20Brief%20of%20Scholars%20and%20of%20Academics%20of%20Constitutional%20Law%20as%20 Amicus%20Curiae.pdf>. 29