The Public Prosecutor's Office has formally appealed to the Supreme Court against the acquittal of soccer player Dani Alves, arguing that the previous ruling was not only unjust but also morally damaging to the victim. On May 7, 2025, the prosecutor's office laid out its arguments, stating that the decision to absolve Alves of sexual assault was "arbitrary," "cruel," and "biased." This appeal follows the overturning of a four-and-a-half-year prison sentence initially imposed on Alves for the sexual assault of a young woman at the Sutton nightclub in Barcelona on December 31, 2022.
According to the prosecutor, Fidel Cadena, the ruling from the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) failed to adequately consider the victim's testimony and the biological evidence presented during the trial. Cadena emphasized that the TSJC's decision effectively condemned the victim by suggesting she was lying and misinterpreting crucial biological evidence. He stated, "The fact that the young woman entered the bathroom with Alves cannot rationally be interpreted as a voluntary acceptance of any sexual acts that occurred inside. This would be a regression in the assessment of consent by centuries."
The prosecutor's office contends that the TSJC's ruling not only undermined the victim's credibility but also ignored significant evidence that corroborated her account of the incident. The prosecutor pointed out that the testimony of the victim's friends, as well as reports from the police and medical personnel, indicated that the young woman was in a state of distress immediately after leaving the bathroom. Cadena questioned, "What could explain her anguish, suffering, and fear of not being believed if she was not a victim of sexual assault?"
Furthermore, the appeal argues that the TSJC's interpretation of the biological evidence was flawed. The prosecutor criticized the court for disregarding the psychological impact on the victim, which could explain certain inconsistencies in her testimony. Cadena noted that the TSJC's ruling did not take into account the trauma the victim experienced, which could have affected her recollection of events. He stated, "The inaccuracies referenced by the TSJC in relation to the victim's account are the result of psychological blockage and the desire to omit innocent actions that could be misinterpreted as non-existent consent."
In its appeal, the Public Prosecutor's Office demands that the Supreme Court either issue a new ruling condemning Alves for sexual assault or return the case to the TSJC for further consideration. The prosecutor's office argues that the TSJC's decision was not only unjust but also violated the victim's right to effective judicial protection by failing to conduct a rational assessment of the evidence presented during the trial.
The case has garnered significant media attention, with many commentators weighing in on the implications of the ruling for victims of sexual assault. Legal experts have expressed concern that the acquittal could set a dangerous precedent, potentially discouraging victims from coming forward due to fears of being disbelieved or blamed for the assault. The prosecutor's office has highlighted the importance of ensuring that victims are treated with dignity and respect throughout the judicial process.
As the appeal progresses, the implications for both Alves and the victim remain significant. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn the TSJC's ruling, it could lead to a retrial or a reinstatement of the original sentence. The case also raises broader questions about how the legal system addresses issues of consent and the treatment of victims in sexual assault cases.
In conclusion, the appeal by the Public Prosecutor's Office against the acquittal of Dani Alves underscores the ongoing challenges faced by victims of sexual assault within the judicial system. As the case moves forward, it will be crucial to monitor how the courts address the complex issues surrounding consent and the credibility of victims.
