Dani Alves’s release did not come as a unanimous decision. In a surprising turn, the presiding judge of the Barcelona Court of Appeal’s Section 21, Luis Belestá, issued a separate dissent opposing the defendant’s release and urged extending the provisional detention. When the vote took place, the remaining two judges prevailed.
“I believe the provisional detention should be extended to a maximum of half the sentence imposed, which is two years and three months in prison”, the judge stated in his individual vote, awaiting the appeal rulings.
Additionally, he argued that the risk of flight has been “reinforced” by the sentence and noted that the last resolution by the same court, which upheld provisional detention, dates back to November 2023. For him, the conviction has not only preserved the conditions that existed at the time of the earlier orders but has intensified them, given the four and a half years imposed on Alves.
He also highlighted that the penalty could rise if the prosecutors and the private accusation, representing the victim, succeed in their appeals and call for the removal of the extenuating circumstance of repairing the damage. In this regard, the judge indicated that while the verdict imposes a sentence lower than what the accusations sought, it does not eliminate the risk of flight, which remains even higher, since the punitive horizon did not change as the prosecutors requested the same penalty at the outset of the trial.
Un contac with a million euros does not deter
Regarding the one-million-euro fine imposed on the player, the dissenting judge noted that Alves’s known assets and income make it unlikely that he faces real financial hardship. He also pointed out that his personal, family, and adult social circle, many of whom have considerable wealth, could facilitate leaving the country to evade justice, potentially even relinquishing the money deposited.
Moreover, he argued that passport withdrawal measures would not be effective. Forensic practice often shows how easily someone can dodge border controls to disappear from accountability, especially when there is money and a network of affluent friends to help, as is the case with Daniel Alves.
A verdict aimed at avoiding public backlash
In interviews with this outlet, lawyer Javier Rodrigálvarez explained that Alves’s release is not far-fetched given the prison term and the time already served. He added that the ongoing appeal process could result in a delay exceeding half of the imposed sentence. Regarding the bail amount, Rodrigálvarez noted that it is sizable but the court would have evaluated the player’s economic capacity.
Meanwhile, lawyer Nuria González stressed that letting Alves out would represent impunity and inequality in the justice system, signaling that a person who commits a crime but can afford bail may not face prison pending sentencing. She recalled that the release ruling acknowledges a flight risk and includes a dissenting vote. “What this shows is that the court never truly intended to convict Alves and handed down a minimal sentence to avoid triggering social backlash, as seen in past high-profile cases,” González argued.
The broader context
Observers note that this case has stirred intense public discussion about the balance between upholding due process, the presumption of innocence, and the need to assess flight risk when high-profile defendants face hefty penalties. The dissenting voice warned that the current decision could set a precedent where money influences access to freedom during trial, a concern many say tests the principle of equal justice under the law.
[End of analysis and summary with attribution to court materials and interviews conducted for this report. The above reflects the perspectives presented by the dissenting judge, the defense counsel, and a range of commentary from legal professionals familiar with the case as reported in public proceedings and court filings.]