In the aftermath of the incident at a nightclub venue, Mossos d’Esquadra retained the bathroom area where the events involving footballer Daniel Alves allegedly occurred. On January 2, two days before the young woman publicly spoke about what happened, officers placed a seal on the bathroom door. The seal, a simple sticker that becomes unusable if the door is opened, served to reassure investigators that the space would remain uncontaminated. Forensic teams subsequently collected biological traces — semen residues and fingerprints — that could place Alves at the scene on January 20 and were anticipated to be pivotal in establishing whether the acts were sexual assault or a consensual encounter, as claimed by Alves’s defense.
A briefing from the Barcelona Court of Appeals, which upheld the precautionary detention of the footballer this week, described the ongoing UCAS investigation (Unitat Central d’Agressions Sexuals) as rigorous and defensive. The investigators carrying out the case are led by a unit where a majority of agents are women, and there is a recognized duty to pursue truth with firmness. Alves’s attorney labeled the inquiry biased, noting that the investigation had begun before the young woman filed a formal complaint.
counted hours
Between reporting and formal charge, months can pass in some cases, a timeline that can affect how victims experience the process. Critics note that delays may work in the offender’s favor, while police sources emphasize the need for thorough fact collection. UCAS, created three years prior, investigates sexual assaults ex officio, meaning it acts as soon as it becomes aware of a case, even if no complaint has yet been filed. This approach is intended to preserve evidence and establish the facts early on.
On the morning of December 30, early in the day, Mossos officers entered the residence of the young woman, assessing her condition and ordering an immediate preservation of the bathroom. Before any formal complaint was filed, UCAS had already dispatched scientific police teams to secure the scene and search for biological material. Investigators found seven fingerprints in the doorway slot that matched the complainant, indicating the positions and movements of her body, along with traces of semen on the floor. The victim reported the events on January 2.
If the bathroom had not been sealed, these biological remnants could have been erased by subsequent visitors or maintenance work during off-hours.
burden of proof
That same night, the young woman was taken to Hospital Clinic, a reference center in Barcelona where women who report sexual assault receive care without delay. A forensic examination followed standard protocol, collecting semen samples and other evidence from the underwear and within the vaginal canal. Weeks later, a forensic report confirmed that the semen matched Alves, and the medical notes also recorded a knee injury sustained by the complainant.
All of these details, gleaned from the bathroom’s initial examination and the complainant’s medical and police statements, were used to challenge Alves’s account. In his latest version, presented after questioning, he claimed Sutton was in the bathroom when the encounter began and that the complainant initiated sexual contact. That narrative did not align with the knee injury, the fingerprints recovered by the scientific police, or the semen traces found in the vaginal area.
The victim described the events in a consistent account to both the police and the court, explaining that Alves sat on the toilet and then initiated force. She stated that she asked him to stop and pleaded to be released, but he refused. She recounted being pushed to the ground, restrained by the neck, struck, and coerced into sexual acts before ultimately being assaulted in a way that left her immobilized. This testimony partly aligns with the evidence gathered through early investigative actions and the decision to intervene in the bathroom before a formal complaint was filed.