Mafia fugitive hospitalised with chest pain, extradition hearing suspended

An extradition hearing had to be suspended this afternoon when the woman in question was taken to hospital due to chest pains

The woman's fears were with regard to third parties and not the Italian authorities themselves
The woman's fears were with regard to third parties and not the Italian authorities themselves

An extradition hearing for mafia turncoat-turned-fugitive Donatella Concas had to be suspended this afternoon when she was taken to hospital, after complaining of chest pain.

Concas, 40, had been living in Mosta before her arrest on 18 October, which happened after her name appeared on a Schengen Information System alert.

Italian news reports said Concas had been convicted of involvement in organised crime, forming part of the Camorra in the Veneto region between 2009 and 2011. She had been sentenced to three years, eight months imprisonment in 2015 by a Venetian court for participation in organised crime, usury, extortion and illegal possession of weapons. However after her conviction, Concas had vanished for more than a year and was only traced in Malta with great difficulty.
 The woman's lawyer, Malcolm Mifsud, repeated to magistrate Aaron Bugeja this morning what he had told the duty magistrate upon the woman's arrest: that she had fled Italy in fear of her life after testifying against members of the mafia who were now trying to kill her. Extraditing her would breach her right to life, which is protected by the Constitution, Mifsud argued.

Magistrate Bugeja noted that the Attorney General had replied to the defence's arguments by explaining that this was a European Arrest Warrant where the Italian authorities were requesting Concas be sent back to serve a sentence. The Italian judicial authorities were to ensure she would be protected and would be in a better position to decide on what form of protection to give her, argued the AG.

The woman's fears were with regard to third parties and not the Italian authorities themselves, therefore the AG was unable to understand how her extradition would breach her right to life.

The constitutional opposition was not a ground to prevent the extradition and had been made too early, argued lawyer Elaine Mercieca from the Office of the Attorney General. She reminded the court that the extradition request had to be decided within one month and if the court were to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court, this period would not be able to be observed.

Concas' request had also been made too early because she had not exhausted all her ordinary remedies and even if the court were to decide to uphold the extradition request, she would still be able to attack the subsequent extradition order, Mercieca submitted.

“If I were to decide to extradite her today,” the magistrate clarified, “the Italians are bound to only imprison her only for the sentence she is being extradited for. Furthermore, there is a seven day period between this court's decision and the actual removal from the country. In that time, she would be able to file constitutional proceedings and it is in that sense that the AG is arguing that her request was too early.”

Her lawyer highlighted what he described as “a real risk” of her being murdered by the criminals whom she had testified against, if she returned. The request for the Constitutional reference was to review this fact. He said he hoped that court would be helped by a recent constitutional judgement in a similar case which established that such a request was itself a breach of her right to life.

“She has no trust that the prison system would prevent her being murdered there. She knows how far these people reach and they reach even into the prisons,” Mifsud argued, adding that Concas had no objection to serving her sentence in a Maltese prison.

The magistrate pointed out however that the only issue he could decide was whether the Constitutional reference option could be proposed at this stage or had to be made later. “I understand that the defence is arguing that it is the request itself which is a breach of the right to life, but this is not a pronouncement this court can make, it is for the Constitutional Court to decide.”

Mercieca argued that this was a warrant made on the basis of the concept of mutual recognition and that the request had been made by “an EU country not a 3rd world country” and the presumption is that steps would be taken to protect her.

“When you are talking about the Italian Mafia, we are all aware of the great efforts by the Italian authorities to combat it, so if there is a witness who is going to testify in a case against it, they will spare no effort in protecting that person.

The lawyer referred to the similar case of Mario Gennaro who was extradited from Malta less than a year ago. He was so well- protected that he had since opened his own business, Mercieca argued.


It was not the first time that the court had dealt with cases of persons with ties to the Mafia, but the problem was whether her safety could be safeguarded by the Italian judicial authorities. The court was explaining how the issue before it needed to be resolved within the parameters of the Maltese law and the European Council's framework decision which created the EAW, when proceedings had to be halted as Concas began to complain of chest pain.

The woman was admitted to hospital.

Lawyers Nadia Attard, Mario Cuschieri and Elaine Mercieca represented the office of the Attorney General in the sitting. Lawyer Malcolm Mifsud was Concas' defence counsel.