The Barcelona Court has sentenced Dani Alves to a sentence of 4 years and six months in prison for the crime of sexual assault. The court has considered it proven that the former FC Barcelona footballer raped a 23-year-old girl in the bathrooms of a booth at the Sutton nightclub in Barcelona on December 30, 2022. The court considers that it has been proven that “the victim did not consent.” and that there are elements of evidence, in addition to the testimony of the complainant, to prove the violation.”
Now, the sentence is far from the 9 years in prison that the Prosecutor’s Office requested for Alves and even more than the 12 that the victim requested. The court has applied to the footballer a mitigating measure of reparation for the damage by considering that “prior to the trial the defense deposited the amount of 150,000 euros into the court’s account so that it could be delivered to the victim regardless of the outcome of the trial, and This fact expresses, according to the court, “a reparative desire.”
The court highlights that the player has benefited from the law of only yes it is yes in that the new legislation has established “a broader punitive framework but a lower lower limit.” In this way, the court justifies that the law establishes that “when only one mitigating circumstance occurs, they will apply the sentence in the lower half of that established by law for the crime” and hence imposes a sentence between 4 and 8 years in prison. . In this range, the mitigating factor of reparation for damage applies and takes into account that Alves has compensated the victim with an amount above the usual parameters and imposes a sentence of four and a half years. With this sentence, the footballer can leave prison through permits when he has reached a quarter of the sentence. For this, the resolution must be final and therefore is at the expense of the resources that the accusation may present.
In the 61-page ruling, the court considers it proven that “the accused abruptly grabbed the complainant, threw her to the ground and, preventing her from moving, penetrated her vaginally, even though the complainant said no, she wanted to leave.” And he considers that “this complies with the type of absence of consent, with the use of violence, and with carnal access”, reason to convict him of sexual assault. The victim’s testimony has been key to proving the conviction, despite the fact that the court maintains that some of her statements “do not match the rest of the evidence conducted.” “There is no spurious motive for the complainant, nor did she know Alves nor does it appear that he had any type of animosity” and highlights that the reporting of this case “has brought her more problems than advantages.”
In the account of the events, the sentence states that the victim and two friends were invited by Alves to a private room in the VIP area of ??the Sutton. There the young women and the complainant herself described a situation of discomfort and even “terror” that the court does not believe. According to the camera images, the young women dance and Alves’ approach to the victim can be seen. From there, the court understands that the victim voluntarily enters the bathroom “for the purpose of being with the accused in a more intimate space” and not to talk to him as she stated during the trial. Now, that does not imply that he consented to all sexual practices. “These attitudes or even the existence of insinuations do not mean giving carte blanche to any abuse or aggression that occurs later; consent in sexual relations must always be given before and even during the practice of sex, in such a way that a person can agree to maintain relationships to a certain extent and not show consent to continue, or not to carry out certain sexual behaviors or do so according to some conditions and not others. What’s more, consent must be given for each of the varieties of relationships sexual acts within a sexual encounter, since someone may be willing to perform touching without implying that they agree to penetration, or oral sex but not vaginal sex, or vaginal sex but not anal, or sex only with a condom and not without it. Not even the fact that touching had been carried out would imply having given consent for everything else,” he maintains.
Alves’ defense argued during the trial that the victim had no injuries, a fact that demonstrated that the relations had been consensual. “For the existence of sexual assault, it is not necessary that physical injuries occur, nor that there be evidence of heroic opposition by the victim to having sexual relations,” the court responds. In fact, the court highlights that the wound on the victim’s knee shows that the relationship was forced.
The sentence has been notified by hand by section 21 of the Court to all parties. On Tuesday the court summoned the prosecutor, the lawyers and the footballer to go in person to the Palace of Justice to receive the sentence in hand and thus avoid leaks. Dani Alves’ lawyer, Inés Guardiola, upon leaving the courthouse, announced that she will appeal the sentence to defend “her innocence until the end.”
The Prosecutor’s Office demanded a sentence of 9 years in prison for Alves, a request that was maintained at the end of the trial considering that during the hearing it had been proven that the former soccer player sexually assaulted the young woman. “The victim said that she was scared in the bathroom and that there was a moment when she let herself go so that everything would end quickly,” he said. The prosecutor considered that the victim’s story had been completely credible. “No woman who walks into a bathroom thinks she might be raped,” she said.
For her part, the complainant’s lawyer, Ester García, requested twelve years in prison for Alves, the maximum penalty provided for the crime of sexual assault. According to the prosecution, the footballer’s guilt was proven during the trial. “If he went into the bathroom and she said no, it’s no. That’s why consent has been modified with the new law. In the bathroom he repeated ‘I want to leave,'” he said.
Dani Alves’ lawyer, Inés Guardiola, had a difficult task defending her client since he faced the trial having given five different versions of what happened. Her strategy was based on minimizing damage. Defending that the sexual relations were consensual, that the post-traumatic stress that the victim still suffers is the result of a bad experience but not of a sexual assault and alleging that the footballer was drunk and was not aware of what he was doing with the aim of achieving a extenuating.
