The latest on the Alves case as the court weighs a possible early release
This Friday, the case involving former Barcelona player Dani Alves is expected to reach a critical point as prosecutors move toward a decision on whether to keep him in custody while the investigation continues. The Barcelona court faces a pivotal moment when the defense lawyer, Cristóbal Martell, may request a temporary release. At the same time, the private prosecutor on behalf of the alleged victim, represented by Ester García, will argue that the pretrial detention should remain. As of today, there is no certainty that Alves will be released on January 20.
The investigation is largely complete, with only a few remaining steps. A forensic expert and an expert appointed by the defense are to prepare reports assessing the victim’s health and the impact of the alleged incident on her since the night of December 30 into December 31. According to the case narrative, Alves is accused of raping the woman in a private bathroom area of a nightclub located on Tuset Street in Barcelona.
In his final statement before the judge, Alves offered a revised account, a shift from earlier testimonies that had already changed several times when weighed against the evidence. He acknowledged engaging in sexual activity that involved penetration after DNA testing indicated the presence of his semen in the victim, but he maintained that the encounter was consensual. He also stated that he had not previously admitted to the act in order to protect his marriage to a public figure, a point his supporters say reflects personal motivations rather than facts relevant to the case.
Claims, counterclaims, and the defense’s argument
The statement made on April 17 did not lead to a release. Shortly after this testimony, Alves’s defense filed another request asking the court to lift the precautionary detention and to dismiss concerns about possible flight risk. The defense argued that Alves possesses resources and capabilities to respond to charges while staying within the bounds of legal procedures. A 200-page report focusing on video footage from the Sutton nightclub was included in the defense’s latest submission.
According to the defense, image analysis is used to compare the nightclub footage against the account offered by the complainant and her two companions. The young woman said she and a friend shared a table in a VIP area for roughly twenty minutes and described feeling fearful at times, yet she entered the bathroom with the impression of personal risk. Alves would have arrived shortly before the alleged incident, while the defense noted him engaging in conversations with his companions in the VIP area prior to that moment.
The defense asserts that the moments in the VIP area show a form of flirtation rather than fear, claiming there is no sign of intimidation in the environment. The prosecution counters that the events described amount to sexual assault, not mutual consent, and that the evidence supports a continued detention while the case proceeds.
The May ruling and ongoing questions about flight risk
On May 9, the presiding judge decided that Alves should remain in custody. The ruling highlighted the defendant’s evolving statements, noting that the latest account suggested there was no real option but to acknowledge consensual sex because the semen found in the victim aligned with Alves. The court reiterated concerns about the possibility of flight and stated that there were insufficient grounds to alter the provisional detention. The defense will press the Barcelona Audiencia to argue that Alves is unlikely to flee and will cooperate with the judicial process, seeking a reversal or modification of the detention order as proceedings continue.
The case remains the subject of intense public and media interest, with ongoing debates about how to interpret witness statements, the role of DNA evidence, and the impact of the alleged incident on the individuals involved. Throughout, authorities emphasize that the legal process must proceed with fairness, supporting the rights of the victim while ensuring that the defendant receives due process. Any future court action will likely hinge on the interpretation of the remaining forensic reports and the overall assessment of risk factors tied to the defendant’s ability to stay in the jurisdiction and comply with court requirements.