Newsletter

Dani Alves, pending the decision of the Court of Barcelona

The Barcelona Court is now deliberating whether or not Dani Alves should continue to be imprisoned, accused of rape, until the trial is held. The Provincial Court held a hearing this Thursday to resolve an appeal filed by the former Barça and Sevilla player, who requested his provisional release. The third section of the provincial hearing has addressed the case with the lawyers of the parties. Neither the victim nor the alleged rapist have been present. Justice could resolve between this Thursday and the next few days and decide if the footballer is still in jail. There is no fixed deadline, although it is not expected to take too long.

Alves, investigated for alleged sexual assault on a 23-year-old girl in a Barcelona nightclub on December 30, has been behind bars since January 20. His lawyer, Cristóbal Martell appealed the order that ordered his admission to prison. The investigating court number 15 in Barcelona decided to send him to prison when it saw signs of criminality and because of the high risk of flight. There were two arguments for the magistrate to see a flight risk: his economic capacity and the lack of extradition agreements between Spain and Brazil.

During the hearing held this Thursday, the lawyers for Alves and the victim and the Prosecutor’s Office have presented their arguments. The lawyer of the girl who denounced the soccer player and the Public Ministry have rejected his release, while the lawyer of the alleged rapist has defended his release. The Prosecutor’s Office and the victim’s lawyer have argued that there is a risk of flight. The soccer player has companies in Brazil, where his children live. The victim and the Prosecutor’s Office fear a new case like Robinho’s. The former Madrid and Milan player was sentenced for rape in Brazil, but he has never served his sentence because he lives in Brazil and has not been extradited. The lawyer has also argued that a release just one month after entering prison “would be an attack on the psychological integrity of the victim.” According to the Prosecutor’s Office, “there are sufficient indications of the commission of a crime of sexual assault with penetration and a serious risk of flight.”

The Public Ministry considers that “there is a serious risk of escape because Alves is a Brazilian national, has a very high net worth that would allow him to ensure his escape and does not have sufficient roots in Spain.” “The alternative measures proposed by his defense are not enough to guarantee that he is available to the Spanish Courts throughout the processing of the case,” he concluded.

The defense ensures that there is no risk of flight

Alves’ lawyer, on the other hand, has tried to prove that there is no risk of flight. The argument that he has put on the table is that Alves returned from Mexico, where he played, to Barcelona voluntarily to testify before the Mossos and the investigating judge. He has also offered some measures to prove that he will not flee, such as handing over his two passports (Spanish and Brazilian), wearing a telematic bracelet to always be reachable, in addition to appearing periodically in court. Martell has highlighted that his client has roots in Spain, where he has been registered since 2010. Among the arguments that he has pointed out is that he is married to a Spanish woman.

On the merits of the case, on whether or not there was a violation, the Brazilian full-back’s lawyer has indicated that “there are reasons to doubt.” Martell has regretted the “early trial” against his defendant. Alves is accused of assaulting and raping a 23-year-old girl at the Sutton nightclub in the Catalan capital. The events occurred on December 30. He first said that he did not know the victim, then that he ran into her in the local bathrooms, and finally that there were relations with her, but that she consented and that she was the one who performed fellatio on him. The DNA tests dismantle this third version, since it is confirmed that there was penetration, as the victim maintains. Martell has questioned the victim’s version. His interpretation of the facts is that there was consensual sex. He has argued that the girl did not present vaginal lesions.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Trending