The Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court (TS) has filed an appeal against the ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJCat) that acquitted footballer Dani Alves of sexual assault, claiming the evaluation of the evidence was not rational and the ruling was arbitrary. The appeal, submitted on May 7, 2025, argues that the court's decision to absolve Alves was not only unjust but also undermined the victim's credibility.
The case dates back to December 31, 2022, when Alves was initially sentenced by Section 21 of the Provincial Court of Barcelona to four years and six months in prison for sexually assaulting a young woman in a Barcelona nightclub. However, on March 28, 2025, the Appeals Section of TSJCat unanimously upheld Alves's appeal, stating that the trial court's conviction contained significant gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions.
In its appeal, the Prosecutor's Office criticized the TSJCat for what it termed a "medieval postulate" regarding the assessment of consent. The prosecutors argued that the court's interpretation of the victim's state of inebriation and its implications for consent were fundamentally flawed. They asserted that the TSJCat's ruling suggested that a woman who voluntarily enters a situation with a man is consenting to all actions that follow, a notion they vehemently oppose.
"The victim's testimony was dismissed as unreliable, but the inaccuracies in her account could be attributed to psychological trauma," the Prosecutor's Office stated. They insisted that the victim's emotional state, which included feelings of guilt and fear of disbelief, should have been taken into account during the trial. The Prosecutor's Office emphasized that the evidence presented, including forensic reports and testimonies from friends and medical staff, supported the victim's claims and should not have been disregarded.
The appeal also highlighted that the TSJCat failed to consider crucial elements of evidence, including the victim's emotional distress immediately following the incident. "What explains her anguish, suffering, and fear of not being believed, if not the reality of having been a victim of sexual assault?" the Prosecutor's Office questioned, underscoring the importance of contextualizing the victim's reactions.
Moreover, the Prosecutor's Office accused the TSJCat of introducing new facts that were not substantiated by the original trial, thereby altering the nature of the case. They argued that the court's assertion of consensual acts contradicted the evidence presented during the trial, particularly regarding the presence of the accused's DNA in the victim's mouth, which they claimed could result from non-sexual contact.
In response to the TSJCat's ruling, the Prosecutor's Office asserted, "The arbitrariness of the resolution is absolute, as it disqualifies the victim's statement, dismissing the credibility that had been granted by the trial court." They contended that the assessment of evidence must be comprehensive and rational, rather than selective and arbitrary.
The original trial had established that Alves had engaged in sexual acts with the victim without her consent. However, the Appeals Court's decision to acquit him was based on perceived inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, which the Prosecutor's Office argued was a misinterpretation of her psychological state following the trauma she experienced.
As the case continues to unfold, the implications of this ruling extend beyond the courtroom. The Prosecutor's Office has expressed concern that the acquittal may set a concerning precedent regarding the treatment of sexual assault victims in judicial processes, particularly when the accused is a public figure.
The Prosecutor's appeal seeks not only to overturn the acquittal but also to ensure that the judicial system adequately protects the rights of victims and holds perpetrators accountable for their actions. The case has garnered significant media attention, reflecting broader societal issues surrounding sexual violence and consent.
Public reactions have been mixed, with some supporting the victim and others expressing skepticism about the judicial process. The case has reignited debates on how sexual assault cases are handled in Spain, particularly in light of the #MeToo movement and ongoing discussions about consent.
In conclusion, the Prosecutor's Office is calling for a thorough reevaluation of the evidence in this high-profile case, emphasizing the need for justice for the victim and the importance of upholding the principles of effective judicial protection. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the appeal, all eyes will be on the proceedings, with many hoping for a resolution that reflects a commitment to justice and fairness.
