Dani Alves, sentenced to 4 years in prison for raping a young man

The court in Barcelona convicted the football player Daniel Alves to four and a half years in prison because on the night of December 30, 2022, he raped a young woman in the bathroom of a booth in the Sutton nightclub in Barcelona, ​​forcing her “with the use of violence”.

In the verdict, published today, the 21st department of the Barcelona court sentences Alves, who was already in preventive detention for the criminal offense of sexual assault, to four and a half years in prison, five years of release and nine years of distance from the victims, to whom he must compensate 150,000 euros, the money he had already deposited as bail.

In the trial, which was held from February 5 to 7, the prosecution asked for nine years in prison for Alves, and the private prosecution for twelve, although the court eventually sentenced him to four and a half years with the extenuating circumstance of compensation. damages and the Criminal Code that was in force when he raped the victim, which was the initial “yes means yes” law of former minister Irene Montero.

The court, which rejects the extenuating circumstance of drunkenness cited by the defense, concludes that it was proven that Alves, using “greatest force”, “suddenly grabbed” the victim, threw her to the ground and prevented her from moving, raped her, “despite the fact that the complainant said no, she wanted to leave.”

According to the Court, when the victim found herself in a small bathroom with no way out, when Alves prevented her from doing so, and given the “violent attitude” he displayed, “she felt shocked and unable to react, reaching the point of feeling that breathless.” given the situation of anxiety and terror related to what he was experiencing”.

The court has “no doubt” that the rape took place and that Alves used “violence“, since the victim’s story about what happened in the bathroom was “coherent and particularly persistent” and was supported by “enough” peripheral evidence, such as the injuries he sustained in one knee, which resulted in the imposition of a fine of 9,000 euros on football player.

The court also emphasizes that the fact that Alves left the night club without saying goodbye to the victim or taking an interest in her at alldespite passing by at a short distance, it shows that the footballer was aware that he “acted against the will of the victim and was interested in leaving the area as soon as possible.”

The court notes that the credibility of the victim’s testimony about how the rape took place is not affected by some “flaws” they observed in her testimony about what happened before going to the toilet, since there are aspects that do not match what she can see on the night club’s security footage.

“The cameras do not show that the complainant and her friends are uncomfortable or that the complainant is not comfortable, does not accept or does not want to continue partying with people she has just met,” the decision reads. which He emphasizes that it is even appreciated that there is a “certain complicity” between the two.

For this reason, the Court does not see as a “reasonable” version of the victim that she went to talk to Alves in the bathroom out of fear that they might follow her after the night club or do something to her and her friends. “It seems to me more like a previous agreement that they go one after the other,” he points out.

The court concludes that the victim voluntarily went to the swimming pool with the aim of being with Alves “in a more intimate space” and that she could have known from where she was that she was going to a closed space.

However, it states that the fact that the victim danced in an “insinuating” manner with Alves or was able to hug him cannot lead them to assume that she gave her consent “to everything that might happen later.”

“These attitudes or even the existence of insinuations do not mean giving carte blanche to any subsequent abuse or aggression; consent to sexual relations must always be given before and even during the practice of sex, in such a way that the person can agree to maintain relations to a certain extent and not show consent to continue, or not perform certain sexual behaviors,” he explains.

The court insists that although the complainant’s credibility is undermined because her version of what happened before entering the bathroom does not match the pictures, this does not lead them to conclude that she lied, so it does not affect “core core” behavior attributed to the accused in the bathroom.

On the contrary, he points out that his version has been maintained over time, that he had no reason to falsely accuse Alves and that his reaction after the event is “so consistent” with “non-consensual” sexual intercourse that they are convinced that the facts happened “as reported by the complainant in this moment.”

The court admits that it does not know why there was this “discrepancy” in the victim’s testimony, although it points out that it could be due to the “mechanism of avoiding” the event, because she did not assume that she had put herself in a situation where she “risked” and for fear of being believes.

Furthermore, he points out that it does not existto the existence of any false motive on the part of the victim or any circumstance that allows us to doubt his credibility in this regardOn the contrary, he claims, “it doesn’t seem” that there were “advantages” in denouncing the facts, but rather “all the problems”.