Overview of a High Court Case in Barcelona
On January 13, 2023, the Governing Court of the Catalan High Court issued an agreement recognizing the work of the judges in Section 21 of the Barcelona Court of Appeal. The document highlighted the special merits of its president, Maria Isabel Delgado Perez, and the magistrates Luis Belestá Segura, Pablo Díez Noval, Carles Almeida Espallargas, Maria Roser Garriga Queralt, and Isabel Gallardo Hernández for transforming a previously congested criminal section into one with minimal pendency, even as the volume of cases did not drop.
Judicial sources note that this section typically publishes its rulings within 10 to 15 days, as seen in the Alves case, where the conviction was announced two weeks after the trial. In this way, Section 21 earned recognition from the TSJC and the Judicature, despite questions and concerns in society about its handling of the Brazilian player’s sexual assault case.
The tribunal that tried Alves was chaired by the section’s president, Maria Isabel Delgado, with Belestá as the reporting judge and Pablo Díez as the third member. Over three sessions, the court heard from the victim, the accused, and about thirty witnesses and experts. At all times, the process safeguarded the victim’s privacy amid the case’s high-profile nature.
Even after the trial concluded, a less common step took place when the judges agreed to a hearing on Alves’s provisional release, listening to all parties after the defense lawyer requested it. In the end, the court did not issue a resolution at that moment, but the ruling noted that when a resource is filed, the player’s lawyer may refile for release pending appeals.
The Release and Sentencing Framework
The four-and-a-half year sentence marks a significant shift in the Dani Alves case. Prosecutors and the accusations argued for prison entry and ongoing detention because of the high risk of flight tied to his wealth and the potential penalties, which could range from nine to twelve years. These arguments carried weight across multiple courts that kept Alves in custody.
Yet after the verdict, Alves had spent 13 months and four days behind bars, having served roughly a quarter of the sentence. Prison regulations allow a convicted person who is legally finalized to seek parole once a quarter of the sentence is served, provided the facility and the treatment board grant authorization.
This means Alves could apply for releases if he were legally convicted and not merely being held as a preventive detainee. The defense’s likely next move is to request freedom from Barcelona’s appellate court while appeals proceed, possibly within ten days of filing.
A Relatively “Low” Penalty
[–>
The decision also raises questions about the punishment’s magnitude. Court sources describe the judges’ efficiency in comparing statements from the victim and witnesses with the security footage and initial police recollections. The three-hour review of material contrasted with the usual shorter formalities, a process that sparked debate about the adequacy of a four-and-a-half year sentence relative to the prosecution’s initial demands.
Critics argued that the penalty, seen as a lower bound within the requested range, did not fully reflect the perceived severity of the crime. The case is often cited as a landmark in the law on consent, challenging gender-based violence narratives. The victim’s lawyer publicly criticized the outcome, noting that the 150,000 euros allocated as compensation did not equate to moral or emotional repair for the victim.
An examination of the verdict highlighted a perceived mismatch between the victim’s account and the video evidence. The court stated there was no clear sign that the complainant or her friends appeared uncomfortable or unwilling to continue the night, suggesting the interaction followed a mutual pattern rather than coercive behavior.
The court further argued that the absence of alarm or fear in the footage did not automatically certify consent, emphasizing that clear consent must be present before, during, and throughout sexual activity. The judges noted that the complainant’s actions did not imply blanket permission for every subsequent action, reinforcing the legal standard that consent is an ongoing condition that can be withdrawn or modified at any time.
The Alves ruling is seen as a milestone in the broader fight against gender-based violence and a reinforcement of the culture of consent. Yet the public reaction has been mixed, with feminists expressing a sense of disappointment about the penalties and the complexity of upholding justice for the victim.