Faced with the near-incomprehensible horror of last summer’s shooting rampage through a Norwegian political party’s summer youth camp, preceded by a deadly bomb attack in central Oslo, even the most devout pacifists could be forgiven for rethinking their stance against capital punishment.

Across Europe and further afield, millions have been captivated by the unrelenting news coverage of the trial of Anders Breivik, who so mercilessly massacred 77 people last July in Oslo and on the resort island of Utoya, where the vast majority of the killings, 69 of them, took place.

The cold and calculated way in which he planned and went about the slaughter of so many teenagers, the youngest of which were just 14 years of age, need not to be repeated or elaborated upon. It is difficult to even begin to imagine the horrors of that day experienced by those children, who were but lambs to a slaughter on that fateful summer afternoon that few will forget.

And certainly there is not a person in Norway who will not have some memory of the atrocity permanently emblazed into their memory, particularly given the incessant media coverage the case has been given there, for obvious reasons. By all reports, many Norwegians are suffering from Breivik fatigue and they simply want to hear no more about it and one can hardly blame them.

And with international news coverage of the trial reaching a fever pitch this week, the media runs a very serious risk of giving Breivik exactly what he wanted in the first place: a platform from which to launch his twisted ideas not just to Norway but to the whole of the world.

And that is just what he wanted, to the extent that before his carefully planned killing spree he had also planned the aftermath. Before the slaughter, he described in his manifesto just how he would use the trial against him to garner worldwide attention and exposure for his sick, extreme right-wing ideas.

And when that Oslo courtroom opened its doors on Monday, the wished-for culmination of the sick plan began to be fulfilled, at least in part.

Hundreds of journalists have packed the Oslo courthouse and television news networks in Europe devoted hours of live airtime to the proceedings. But irrespective of whether viewers watched in disgust and disdain, the fact is that Breivik, as he had contemplated, has been given a brightly-lit stage to promote his personal brand of intense anti-Islam ideology, and everything is pretty much going according to plan for him.

No doubt Breivik is pleased about the widespread interest in the case, that he is being given a chance to explain himself and attempt to justify his actions, which he claims were taken in “self-defence”. And survivors and victims’ near and dear ones are understandably upset that he is being given the attention that he sought. Some say he is actually being rewarded.

The Oslo District Court had given permission for a Norwegian pool broadcaster to transmit most of the opening of the trial live, but will not allow it to show the testimony from Breivik or the victims. Nor is it allowed to broadcast surveillance video from the car bombing or an audio recording of a desperate phone call from a teenager who was hiding from Breivik on Utoya, in which increasingly louder gunfire could be heard in the background. The broadcaster is also removing sound from the most detailed court descriptions of Breivik’s killings and it didn’t air footage of his propaganda video on Monday when it was shown in the courtroom.

But, on the other hand, there was no ban on text reports and the few journalists allowed inside the main courtroom quickly transmitted details to their respective media outlets, and the Norwegian broadcaster will report Breivik’s testimony in print and in full on its website.

Opinion is very much divided on whether it is wrong to limit coverage of how Breivik explains himself and the fact remains that whatever the crime, Breivik has a right to explain himself - a fundamental human right and a right under Norwegian law.

The Breivik trial has been and will continue to be a very difficult balancing act between a mass killer’s right to explain himself, the public’s right to full knowledge of court proceedings and denying a vicious, deranged killer a pulpit to preach his messages of hate.