ROME (AP) — The Vatican on Monday abruptly deserted its extradition request for an Italian girl needed on embezzlement-related prices in a case that would have examined whether or not Italy considers the Vatican a spot the place somebody can get a good trial.

On the listening to in a Milan court docket, the Vatican mentioned it now not was looking for to detain Cecilia Marogna, thereby eradicating any cause to proceed with an analysis of her extradition. An announcement from Vatican prosecutors mentioned their resolution would let her take part freely in an “imminent” trial within the metropolis state.

Nonetheless, the maneuver appeared extra aimed toward avoiding an embarrassing precedent that the Milan court docket might have set by ruling towards Vatican prosecutors, given there is no such thing as a extradition treaty between the 2 states. Marogna’s legal professionals might have additionally argued that with out such a treaty, Italian legislation bars sending residents to a rustic the place their “basic proper” to a good trial isn’t assured.

Vatican prosecutors have accused Marogna of embezzlement and misappropriation of Holy See funds. They are saying she was paid a minimum of 575,000 euros by the Vatican secretariat of state from 2018-2019 to assist liberate Catholic hostages, however that the cash was used as an alternative to purchase Prada, Chanel and different high-end luxurious items.

Italian police arrested Marogna in Milan on Oct. 13 primarily based on a global warrant issued by the Vatican by way of Interpol. With the Vatican insisting she posed a flight danger, Marogna was jailed for 2 weeks earlier than an Italian court docket ordered her freed. Just lately, Italy’s highest court docket dominated that she by no means ought to have been arrested earlier than a court docket evaluated whether or not she may very well be extradited.

In a press release Monday after the Vatican bailed on the extradition request, Marogna’s attorneys blasted what they mentioned was the Vatican’s “dishonorable” resolution to surrender earlier than the Milan court docket might rule.

“What a pity!” they mentioned. “We’re profoundly displeased that because of a last-minute backpedaling … we weren’t capable of receive full justice with a choice that may have acknowledged their (Vatican prosecutors’) unfounded and arbitrary earlier insistence to incarcerate” Marogna.

The Marogna case and associated Vatican corruption investigation right into a London actual property enterprise have uncovered how the Vatican’s judicial system is inconsistent with European norms.

Italian legal professionals who’ve defended purchasers earlier than the Vatican tribunal say its procedures are outdated, don’t present enough rights for the accused and are topic to arbitrary interference by the pope, who as absolute monarch workout routines unique legislative, govt and judicial energy.

Within the broader corruption case, Pope Francis approved a process that precludes oversight of prosecutors by an unbiased choose through the investigative section. There may be additionally no probability for the protection to contest testimony obtained through the investigation or proof seized throughout searches, as could be required in Italy.

“Any component that’s acquired by the prosecutors’ workplace through the preliminary investigation constitutes a proof” for use at trial, mentioned Laura Sgro, who has defended purchasers earlier than the tribunal however is not concerned on this case. “It’s completely dangerous to the protection.”

Vatican prosecutors insist the rights of the accused are safeguarded, and that the pope needed to order the “abstract ceremony” on this case due to a technicality owing to the previous authorized code in use.

However outdoors town state, Vatican prosecutors have been putting out. Just lately, a Rome court docket declared a Vatican-ordered search of a Rome house unlawful and with out motivation.

The Courtroom of Assessment discovered that Vatican prosecutors had bypassed the Italian Justice Ministry in amending their search warrant, emailing Italian prosecutors on to ask Italian police to grab cash, gold cash and different items from the house of Onofrio Tirabassi, the daddy of a suspect.

The Courtroom of Assessment declared that the seizure request was “radically null and illegitimate” as a result of it disadvantaged the Justice Ministry the possibility to judge it, and ordered the cash returned to the daddy, who was not underneath investigation.

The Marogna investigation is a by-product of the primary Vatican probe into the secretariat of state’s 350 million-euro funding right into a London actual property enterprise, which has triggered a scandal as a result of a few of it was funded by donations from the devoted.

Marogna has mentioned she reached out to the secretariat of state’s then-No. 2, Cardinal Angelo Becciu, in 2015 with considerations about safety for Vatican embassies in sizzling spots, and was shortly introduced into Becciu’s interior circle.

Based on textual content messages reported by Vatican prosecutors, Becciu on Dec. 20, 2018, approved wiring Marogna’s Slovenian-based Logsic agency 75,000 euros “as a result of it appears one thing is beginning to transfer” within the case of a kidnapped Colombian nun. One other message mentioned the pope himself was conscious of the event and needed every little thing stored “in nice secrecy.” 4 different funds had been made to Logsic from January-July 2019.

Marogna informed Italian media the cash was for compensation and reimbursements for bills she incurred doing safety work for the Holy See. She acknowledged, although, that some purchases, reminiscent of a designer pocketbook, had been “for the spouse of a Nigerian buddy who was able to speak to the president of Burkina Faso.”

Francis fired Becciu on Sept. 24 for what Becciu mentioned had been unrelated embezzlement allegations that he denied. Becciu has mentioned all his relations with Marogna had been “solely for institutional issues.”

Copyright 2021 The Related Press. All rights reserved. This materials will not be printed, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed with out permission.