The Barcelona Court has sentenced Dani Alves to four and a half years in prison for the sexual assault of a 23-year-old girl in the toilets of a booth at the Sutton nightclub in Barcelona. The magistrates of Section 21 give credibility to the victim's account of the events and consider it proven that the former FC Barcelona player penetrated her vaginally without her consent and “with the use of violence.” The victim of the rape has received news of the conviction, which is not final and can be appealed, in the office of her lawyer, Ester García. The court has also agreed to keep Alves in provisional prison, where he has remained since January 20, 2023.
The Prosecutor's Office initially requested nine years in prison, which the private prosecution, on behalf of the victim, raised to 12. The court, however, has appreciated an extenuating circumstance that has helped Alves to see the prison sentence reduced: reparation of the damage, since he paid the 150,000 euros in compensation requested by the accusation. The magistrates have, however, ruled out the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness, since it was not proven that “alcohol consumption” affected his abilities. In addition to the four and a half years – of which he has already served a year and a month in preventive detention – the sentence imposes a five-year supervised release sentence, which will be applied once the prison sentence has been completed. It also prohibits him from approaching less than one kilometer from the victim's home or workplace and orders him to pay those 150,000 euros (already paid) for the moral damages and injuries caused to the young woman.
The court considers the victim's story about what happened in the toilets of the Sutton room reserved to be proven. Alves “suddenly grabbed the complainant, threw her to the ground and, preventing her from moving, penetrated her vaginally, even though the complainant said no, that she wanted to leave.” The magistrates understand that this “complies with the type of absence of consent, with the use of violence and carnal access.” The young woman did not have vaginal injuries (only a bruise on her knees), but the ruling recalls that “for the existence of sexual assault it is not necessary that physical injuries occur, nor that there be evidence of heroic opposition on the part of the victim to having sexual relations.” .
Consent “before and even during sex”
The court develops an extensive argument regarding consent, an issue that is at the epicenter of the Alves case and that has made it the first major criminal case after the approval of the law of only yes is yes. “Not only can consent be revoked at any time, but consent must also be given for each of the sexual varieties within a sexual encounter.” “There is no evidence,” adds the ruling, that the victim “gave her consent” for this practice; Furthermore, it considers it proven that Alves “subdued the will of the victim with the use of violence.”
The images from the cameras in Sutton's VIP area show how the victim danced “in a suggestive manner” with Alves, who “put her buttocks closer to the accused” and even “hugged him.” But from there it cannot be assumed that the girl “was giving her consent to everything that could subsequently happen”; in this case, vaginal penetration in the bathroom, which the magistrates say occurred “without a doubt using violence.” “These attitudes or even the existence of insinuations do not mean giving carte blanche to any abuse or aggression that occurs subsequently.” Consent in sexual relations, he adds, “must always be given before and even during the practice of sex”, in a way that allows anyone to have sex “to a certain extent” and not be willing to “go ahead” or carry out certain practices. “Consent,” the resolution states, “must be provided for each of the varieties of sexual relations within a sexual encounter.”
The credibility of the victim
One of the keys in resolving the case was knowing what opinion the victim's statement deserved in the court. In the absence of other decisive evidence, her story was the cornerstone on which the resolution was going to be based, whatever its meaning. This is what happens “in the majority of crimes against sexual freedom,” the magistrates admit, and even more so when “the fundamental piece is the existence of consent.” The judges of Section 21 remember that “there is no presumption of truthfulness of the victim nor does her statement prevail over the statements of the accused,” who enjoys the right to the presumption of innocence. And he points out that recent legislative reforms (the law of only yes is yes) “they have not modified the criteria for evaluating the evidence,” nor have they reversed the burden of proof: it is the accusations that must prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the crime has been committed.
Alves's defense based its strategy on trying to discredit the victim. He argued that his account of the events about what happened in the VIP area, moments before the attack, did not correspond at all with what Sutton's surveillance cameras showed. The lawyer, Inés Guardiola, insisted that there was a mutual sexual attraction between the two and that, once in the bathroom, the young woman did not withdraw her consent. “At no point did he tell me to stop, we were both enjoying it and nothing more,” declared the Brazilian soccer player during the trial.
The court admits that some statements by the complainant, those that have to do with what happened in the VIP area, “are not consistent with the evidence carried out”, but considers that, at the core of her statement (what happened in the bathroom) , the victim's narrative has been “coherent and especially persistent” throughout the investigation phase. Quite the opposite of Alves, who in his first appearance before the judge on January 20, 2023 (the one that led him to provisional prison) gave up to three different versions of what happened. The ruling emphasizes that, in the victim's appearance at the oral trial – which was held behind closed doors to protect her identity and was recorded with her image and voice distorted – no “relevant contradiction” was noted.
In favor of the credibility of the victim, the sentence adds, is the fact that no spurious motive has been proven. “She did not know Mr. Alves, nor is there evidence that she had any animosity towards him,” nor has there been any evidence of “any quarrel, envy, jealousy or other reason” that would lead her to report events that have caused her “more problems than advantages.” . In addition to severe post-traumatic stress, she has suffered other unpleasant consequences; for example, that his identity and image have been disclosed, since the player's entourage (including Alves's mother) released a video of him a few weeks before the trial. The sentence recalls that, from the first moment and as various witnesses testified at the trial, including Sutton employees, the victim “was afraid to report” for fear that his identity would be revealed, as has happened.
The “peripheral” signs
The victim's statement is not the only element of evidence that allows Alves' conviction, but there is “other evidence that corroborates his story.” These are “peripheral” corroborations that, although not definitive on their own, added together do allow us to conclude that the sexual relationship was not consensual: the victim's injuries to both knees, which were “a product of the violence used by Alves to bend the complainant over and place her on the ground”; the behavior of the victim immediately after the event and the existence of psychological consequences.
The resolution has come just two weeks after the last session of the trial, which was held between February 5 and 7. Although in cases with preventive prisoners (like Alves) sentences are usually handed down quickly, it is a very short period but not unusual for Section 21. During the last opening of the judicial year in Catalonia, its magistrates were decorated for having reduced the enormous backlog in cases that this section accumulated.
The oral hearing was held amid great expectation and could only be partially followed due to the restrictions imposed by the court to protect the victim. For example, images from Sutton's security cameras in the reserved area could not be seen, which according to Alves do not correspond to what the victim reported. The player defended her innocence and tried to undermine the young woman's credibility, despite the fact that hers was already at very low levels.
Telephone 016 assists victims of all sexist violence – from physical to psychological, sexual or economic -, their families and those around them 24 hours a day, every day of the year, in 53 different languages. The number is not registered on the telephone bill, but the call must be deleted from the device. You can also contact via email [email protected] and by WhatsApp at the number 600 000 016. Minors can contact the ANAR Foundation telephone number 900 20 20 10. If it is an emergency situation, you can call 112 or the National Police telephone numbers (091) and the Civil Guard (062). And if you cannot call, you can use the ALERTCOPS application, from which an alert signal is sent to the Police with geolocation.
#Dani #Alves #sentenced #years #prison #rape #young #woman #nightclub