Dani Alves will remain in prison until the trial: “A typical sexual courtship between two adults cannot justify a subsequent attack”

Daniel Alves it will continue jail until the trial for the sexual abuse of a young woman in a nightclub in Barcelona. The judiciary again rejected his lawyer’s request to release him from prison, where he was admitted on January 20 this year, accused of raping a girl in Sutton de BarcelonaDecember 30.

After a court hearing held last Friday, the court in Barcelona rejected the appeal of the footballer’s lawyer and decided that the Brazilian player should remain behind bars. This is the second time he has denied the release of the former Sevilla, Barcelona, ​​PSG and Juventus player, as has the investigative judge looking into his case. At each request of his lawyers to be released, the justice (up to four times) ruled against him and decided to remain in pre-trial detention.

The judges of the court in Barcelona believe that “the risk of flight remains and is still established”. “We consider that no other precaution can neutralize the said risk with sufficient guarantees and that his escape would prevent the holding of a trial that requires the presence of the person under investigation,” the judges said in the order published this Monday.

Alves’ lawyer Cristóbal Martell assured at the hearing held on Friday that Alves will not flee Spain. And as an argument, he stated that his ex-wife and their two children registered in Barcelona, ​​coming from Brazil, to live near him. “It seems that the Spanish documentation and the registration of minor children in Spain were made ad hoc, practically on the same day when the decision was made denying freedom, so that it could be discussed before this court”, justified the judges who did not accept the arguments of the defense. Both the Prosecutor’s Office and the victim’s lawyer opposed the release.

The victim claims that the football player raped and beat her. Martell tried to discredit his thesis and went so far as to confirm that his version “falls flat” given the videos reviewed. “We have to keep in mind that, even if it was a typical sexual courtship between two adults, as the defense claims, it cannot in any way justify a subsequent sexual attack,” the judges point out, throwing the football defense line to the ground. the player’s lawyer.

arguments

“Nor can an argument be established that would exclude an attack on the sexual freedom of a young woman in which she voluntarily entered the bathroom. Even if this were the case, it would not give Mr. Alves any concession to impose a sexual act on the victim,” they added. “What happened before entering the toilet does not mean that she consented to sexual intercourse with penetration that was accredited, nor that she lied about it,” warn the judges. “As we have already said, his testimony has sufficient features of reliability at this procedural stage,” they conclude. In order to try to prove that there was no rape, as the victim points out, but that it was a consensual relationship, as the player assures, his lawyers argued “the lack of lesions in the victim’s vaginal cavity”, that is, they called the “vaginal discharge” “incompatible” with forced intercourse.

The prosecutor believes that the reasons for the temporary detention have not changed and that there are numerous indications for the criminal offense of sexual assault with penetration. Because of this, he asked to remain in prison. In his opinion, Alves’ testimony was tailored to the evidence against him and does not even match the marks found in the toilet or the injury to the young woman’s knee. The State Ministry points out that he does not have enough roots and that the risk of escape is very high, which is why he must remain in temporary custody.

The private lawsuit agrees with the Prosecutor’s Office. He assures that the football player’s version is not credible, because he said that he changed the story out of concern that his infidelity would not be known. He believes that the risk of escape remains intact and that the circumstances that necessitated the adoption of a precautionary measure have not changed.