The Barcelona Court has sent former FC Barcelona player Dani Alves to trial on charges of sexual assault following allegations that he raped a young woman in a Barcelona nightclub booth last December. The decision marks a formal step in the legal process, moving the case from investigation to public accusation where evidence must be debated in court.
An order issued by the 21st division of the tribunal confirms that the case against Alves relies on victim and witness statements in addition to expert analysis, all of which together are deemed to provide sufficient grounds to proceed to trial for sexual assault.
The ruling opens a five-day window for victims to submit qualification documents to the prosecutor’s office and the special prosecutor’s office, a procedural step ahead of establishing the trial date. This window stands as the last action before the judicial timetable progresses toward trial proceedings.
The Barcelona Court of Inquiry No. 15 had previously pursued Alves in July after he was detained by the Mossos d’Esquadra, with the judge affirming preventive detention amid accusations of raping a 23-year-old woman. On December 30, the court set a potential sentence and ordering the candidate trial, while a bail amount of €150,000 was required to cover potential compensation to the victim.
Alves’ defense, led by lawyer Inés Guardiola since October, had asked for the annulment of the case on grounds that leaks from the investigation violated the presumption of innocence. They argued that certain elements were ignored due to a perception of bias and a media-driven narrative surrounding the case, suggesting the process had already been influenced by outside publicity.
According to the defense, widespread media coverage can contaminate a judicial investigation and erode key constitutional rights. The defense asserted that this interference could be irreparable, presenting a danger to the integrity of the proceedings.
The Barcelona Court acknowledged that public figures often attract intense media scrutiny and that pretrial commentary can shape public opinion. It stressed that such commentary should not derail the legal process and that remedies exist to protect the victim’s dignity without undermining due process.
In its ruling, the court expressed regret over leaks and parallel cases but emphasized that these issues did not warrant invalidating the investigation since they did not directly affect the judicial process. The court noted that media activity, while troubling, did not automatically compromise the case’s procedural foundations.
Regarding the defense’s appeal to recuse the instructor or to challenge impartiality, the court observed that no recusal request had been made and that there was no evidence showing the magistrate’s bias affected the proceedings, pointing out that the instructor had accepted all conducted procedures. The appeal regarding the expert’s role during the July 11 recognition of the victim was forwarded to questions to be addressed at the oral hearing stage.
Investigative findings indicate that prosecutors believe there were reasonable indicators suggesting Alves danced with the victim and, on two occasions, took her hand and placed it on his genital area. The victim reportedly removed her hand on both occasions as a sign of refusal.
According to the charge sheet, Alves then guided the victim toward a secluded bathroom area in the VIP section, where he allegedly pulled her forcefully as she attempted to resist, asking her to stop. She reportedly asked him to stop, and he reportedly insisted on leaving with her, attempting to exit the venue without delay.
The judge’s account states that Alves did not heed the victim’s pleas. He allegedly pulled her dress, held her head, and forced a confrontation that resulted in a head injury for the victim. The aim, prosecutors allege, was to coerce sexual activity, though attempts at forcing oral sex were not successful, leaving Alves angry and agitated.
The indictment portrays a sequence where Alves allegedly slapped the victim multiple times, pressed her against a small sink, and pressed his genitals against her body before ultimately engaging in a forceful act without consent. The language used describes a violent confrontation intended to compel sexual activity.
Throughout the investigation, Alves offered several versions of events. Initially, he claimed no acquaintance with the victim, then alleged a chance meeting with no incident in the nightclub bathroom. When compared with biological evidence, the defense argued that any sexual act was consensual. In a subsequent statement, made after biological tests revealed traces of Alves’ sperm, Alves reportedly confessed to consensual intercourse, explaining that the prior statements were an attempt to conceal infidelity from his wife.