“A cold shower of reality.” That was how Ester García, the attorney representing the victim in the Dani Alves case, framed Barcelona’s court’s decision to grant provisional release to the player after posting a one‑million euro bond, along with other measures like passport withdrawal and weekly court appearances. In simple terms, the court let him go under strict conditions while the case continues. The attorney described the ruling as a surprise and difficult to justify in terms of legal arguments, noting she could not articulate a clear legal explanation for the decision to her client. The victim remains in a state of pain, deeply upset, and overwhelmed by disbelief that Alves could walk free while the case moves forward. The breach restrictions, which prohibit any contact or proximity to the woman, do not mar the unsettling prospect that he could be released at any moment pending the posted bond.
In explaining the development, the attorney stressed that a precise legal justification was hard to find, given the extraordinary nature of the ruling. The victim is described as traumatized, anguished, and profoundly frustrated as she contemplates a potential scene where the defendant could reenter daily life while under a bail condition. A formal message has been delivered to the defense team that the abandonment of direct communication with the survivor remains a cornerstone of the imposed measures. The broader impact on the public is also part of the discussion, with concern that the decision could be perceived as it sets a precedent where wealth influences outcomes in the justice system. This perspective was conveyed as part of a deliberate critique of the process and its perceived fairness.
Opposition to the ruling is expected to be voiced through a formal appeal, which the defense plans to file in the coming days. The statement from the victim’s side warns that the release on a one‑million‑euro bond might set a dangerous precedent, suggesting to the public that justice operates differently for the wealthy, compared with others facing similar charges. The attorney cautions that such a perception could erode trust in the legal system, highlighting the potential consequences for the rule of law.
The prosecuting party maintains that the risk of flight remains real. They recall that Alves had previously been sentenced to four and a half years in prison after the court took into account a mitigating factor for restitution, noting a €150,000 payment to compensate the victim, without any shown remorse. The defense, for its part, has pledged to continue advocating for a higher sentence, arguing that the case warrants a more severe penalty given the nature of the alleged sexual assault. This ongoing dispute keeps the case in the public eye as both sides prepare for further legal action and a potential sentencing process.