In the case concerning Dani Alves, the attorney representing the victim, Ester García, has expressed relief at the four-and-a-half-year prison sentence handed to the player, while also noting disappointment with the severity. The law firm stated that this is the lowest penalty they have encountered in more than two decades of handling sexual violence cases.
The attorney notes that applying the mitigating factor for the victim’s damaged restitution could send a misleading signal to society, implying that those with financial resources might see a reduced penalty by providing a substantial monetary reimbursement. Nevertheless, she added that the victim is satisfied with the outcome. The litigator recounted the victim’s initial reaction, which was a hesitation to report and a fear that she would not be believed. Upon learning the sentence, she reportedly felt vindicated, and to the attorney, this felt like a personal victory for the survivor.
Despite pending review of the content, the lawyer favors appealing the decision from a legal perspective. She contends that the four-and-a-half-year term does not align with the most recent reform of the Penal Code in this area, commonly referred to as the “only yes means yes” law. The argument centers on the belief that the court should have applied a different standard in light of the applicable law at the time the events occurred.
The attorney argues that the November 2022 penal reform, which the court utilized because it was in force at the time of the incidents, would have allowed for a higher penalty. Accordingly, she has asserted that the goal of her client and her team was always to secure a harsher sentence and, if possible, reduce compensation to the victim.
Nevertheless, she regards the ruling as an exemplary decision and asserts that it is very forceful in addressing the element of consent, as the law of the “only yes means yes” framework articulates it.
Specifically, the lawyer may request the revocation of the restitution-attribution mitigation, arguing that it is not appropriate in this case. She emphasized that Alves did not demonstrate any financial or moral effort to compensate the victim for the emotional and moral damages suffered.