The trial against Dani Alves was seen yesterday for sentencing and the immediate future of the footballer is already in the hands of the three members of the court. The Prosecutor maintains the request for nine years in prison because it considers it proven that the Brazilian raped the complainant and that he acted with violence and absolute contempt towards the victim. The prosecutor Elisabeth Jiménez took advantage of the last intervention to highlight the strength of the young woman: “She has been very brave”.
Alves testified for just ten minutes to try to convince the court that the relations he had with the young woman were consensual and that there was no violence, but shared desire. The accused tried to minimize risks and only answered the questions of his lawyer, Inés Guardiola. He assured that he did not restrain the young woman and that he did not beat, humiliate or force her. “Did he tell you that he didn’t want to have sex with you or did he make any gesture to that effect?” asked his lawyer. “No, at no time did he say anything to me. We were both having fun and nothing more.”
It was a short statement, only ten minutes long, in which he explained a version of the events that is in line with the second version that he left at his own request before the investigating judge and which differs from the first. During the exhibition, which he stopped several times to cry, he presented himself as an emotionally broken man, who has lost everything: sports career, sponsors, contracts. “I found out that I had been reported for rape because of an ABC news report. The world fell on top of me.”
He explained that on the night of December 30, 2022, he ended up with his friend Bruno at the Sutton after a dinner that lasted until the early hours and in which he drank more than he could count: two bottles of wine, several glasses of whiskey and a round of gin and tonics. In the trial, the defense introduced the element of alcohol to seek a mitigating factor that would allow the sentence to be reduced if convicted. He assured that the sexual intercourse in the bathroom was consensual and denied that the young woman told him at any time that she wanted to leave, or that he prevented her from leaving. “She could leave at any time,” she clarified as she refused to be slapped, grabbed by the hair and insulted. “I’m not a violent man, I’m not that type of man”, he clarified.
The events began, he said, when his friend Bruno invited the complainant and her companions to table six of the reservation. “He was close, I am a very close person, but always with respect”, he explained in contrast to the “slobbery” attitude described by the complainant’s friends. And he described the dance with the complainant. “He started to border his parts with mine, a typical disco dance, perrear . And we started to get more intimate, me and the lady who reported.” And at one point, he continued, she started touching his genitals. “There was sexual tension” and he suggested that she continue in the bathroom. “She told me yes.”
The accused reproduced on the chair the position he maintained with the complainant in the bathroom, and assured that his attitude was passive and that it was the woman who took the initiative.
The session ended with the reports of conclusions. Three forceful interventions and perfectly well woven and argued by the three professionals, despite the disparity of positions of each.
The prosecutor maintains the nine-year request because she considers the complainant’s story to be entirely credible. “The victim said that he was scared in the bathroom and that there was a moment when he let himself go so that everything would end quickly.” The prosecutor spoke as a woman and assured that there are many, including her, who have experienced uncomfortable situations and that is not why they leave, justifying the three young women to continue at Sutton, despite everything. “No woman who enters a bathroom thinks she can be raped”, he concluded, also warning that the victim may have entered freely, even kissing, but there was a moment when she said “no” and she was not respected. It affected the changes in the player’s version, which indicate that he felt “unpunished”.
The prosecution lawyer, Ester García, maintained the maximum sentence of 12 years because she considered it proven that there was a violation. “It doesn’t matter to me if I previously walked around or looked for him with my buttocks. If he went into the bathroom and she said no, then no. That is why the consent has been modified with the new law. In the bathroom he repeated: ‘I want to go'”. And he recalled that it is no longer necessary to prove the victim’s resistance to confirm an assault. “We are no longer in this debate. The accused knew that the young woman did not want it. It was an act of humiliation”, he reprimanded.
During the investigation, Alves paid 150,000 euros as compensation for the damage and, in the event of being convicted, that the gesture could also be a mitigating factor. But the prosecution warned that it is not appropriate to apply this reduction with the footballer’s attitude. And he remembered the first video and assured that he did not know the girl and the subsequent interview with La Vanguardia in which he said he forgave her.
The lawyer recalled one of the complainant’s sentences during the statement at the trial. “She said it herself: ‘I was a very happy woman until unfortunately I had to file a complaint'”.
Dani Alves’ lawyer closed the session with a long intervention in which she insisted on the innocence of the accused and assured that her version of the consensual relations had been proven with the evidence seen during the trial. Inés Guardiola was amused by the fingerprints found in the bathroom which, he said, match the postures described by Alves.
Much of the intervention was based on finding what she defined as “contradictions” and “falsities” from the complainant about what happened in the bathroom and before entering it. Guardiola recalled the remains of Alves’ DNA in the complainant’s mouth, which would confirm the version of fellatio, denied by the young woman. And he continued by recalling moments from the security cameras, which, he said, dismantle the version of the complainant and her companions about what happened before entering the toilet. “The camera shows that the placing of the complainant’s hand on Mr. Alves’ penis is voluntary.” And from there, after other examples, he said that if the victim had not told the truth about what happened outside, his account of what happened inside had no credibility.
In the end, Guardiola warned the court that he has “never” assessed, criticized or questioned the victim’s attitude, nor his way of dancing, nor the decision to enter the bathroom or not. “I have limited myself to describing what he did and what he did was a consent to sexual relations, a consent that was never revoked.” He ended by assuring that “anyone else would have interpreted the same as Alves did, which is that the complainant wanted to have sex”. “I invite you to be brave. It’s not about believing or not believing the victim, about having an act of faith, but about validating the story with evidence,” he said, addressing the court.
Despite the forcefulness of the final report, Guardiola did not fare well on the evidence of drunkenness that he tried to defend at trial to seek mitigation in the event of a conviction. A couple of psychologists appeared who had to testify that the accused was drunk, but to whom the victim’s lawyer lashed out with the last question, making them answer that the accused was perfectly aware of what he did that night.
Dani Alves resigned from the turn of the last word and his lawyer requested the release, which the court will study before issuing a sentence.
