The long-awaited verdict against Dani Alves casts light and shadow on the difficult fight against gender-based violence. The positive takeaway is that the conviction — four years and six months in prison — sends a clear message: even a famous and powerful aggressor faces accountability when a rape is proven. The court did not believe the latest version from the footballer, nor the claim that the complainant told him to stop and that both parties were enjoying themselves.
Moreover, the sentence includes instructive phrases aligned with feminist movements. It states that a conviction for sexual assault does not require visible injuries or heroic resistance by the victim to be warranted. It also clarifies that the fact the complainant pressed her buttocks against the accused does not imply consent for sexual activity because consent must be given for each specific form of sexual relation. In short, insinuation is not the same as penetration without protection. This ruling, which drew global attention, marks a shift toward viewing consent as the core axis of what constitutes a crime.
Yet Alves receives the minimum sentence, while prosecutors had asked for nine years and the victim sought twelve. The decision surprised many, especially since he has already spent thirteen months in prison and the court found that violence was used to coerce the accuser. The light punishment stems from the range of penalties established by the original version of the “sí es sí” reform. Much of the ensuing criticism has returned to the law championed by Irene Montero. The sentence is also viewed as softened because Alves compensated the victim with 150,000 euros, prompting some voices to worry about a justice for the rich compared to the poor. Ultimately, the court settled on the minimum within the four to eight year range.
The Catalan newspaper El Periódico, part of the Prensa Ibérica group, breaks down the controversial aspects of the verdict with expert legal voices on sexual violence.
Did the four-year sentence result from the first ‘sí es sí’ law?
Yes and no. The original sí es sí law, pushed by the ministry led by Montero, was applied because it governed the period when the offense occurred. That statute set a range of four to twelve years for aggravated sexual assault with penetration, which lowered the minimum for this crime and, along with reductions in other categories, led to lighter sentences for many offenders. The PSOE responded with a reform, supported by the PP and not Podemos, which toughened penalties and is now in effect. With the upward correction, the current minimum for this offense is six years.
But the specific four years and six months imposed within the fourteen-year maximum is a tribunal decision that recognized a mitigation for reparative damages because Alves deposited the 150,000 euros demanded by the victim as compensation, a factor reflected in the sentence.
The recognition of a mitigation requires the Barcelona High Court to impose a sentence in the lower half of the range, meaning four to eight years. “Yet it is the court, not the sí es sí law, that chose four years and six months instead of eight years,” notes Victoria Rosell, a magistrate and former government representative against gender violence. Rosell helped push the sí es sí reform as part of Montero’s team.
What role does the mitigation play?
According to Júlia Humet, a lawyer specializing in gender-based violence, the court gave the mitigation “a lot of weight.” “The proven facts are grave, violence occurred, and the victim is deeply affected, but essentially the sentence sets the penalty at the lowest end, which I find inappropriate,” she says. In her view, the verdict appears contradictory because the ruling acknowledges the irreparable harm of sexual violence while simultaneously valuing the defendant’s financial capacity and granting the damage repair mitigation. This yields an apparent contradiction between the reasoning and the outcome.
Would Alves have been convicted under the pre‑sí es sí law?
Knowing that for sure is impossible. The sí es sí reform was driven in part to end impunity in relation to less serious sexual offenses and to remove the need to prove violence or the complainant’s resistance for a conviction. But in this case, jurors found proven violence, believed the victim’s testimony, and noted a knee injury. Humet suggests the case might have resulted in conviction under the prior Penal Code, perhaps with a lighter sentence.
Susana Gisbert, a prosecutor who specializes in gender violence, also sees the possibility of the earlier outcome, though she recalls how in the first landmark case known as La Manada the court treated the offense as abuse rather than rape and a judge later urged acquittal. “With the sí es sí law, there is less interpretive room,” she argues, because the reform eliminates the crime of abuse and treats any act against sexual freedom as aggression.
Beyond the letter of the law, social awareness matters, Humet emphasizes. “A few years ago a victim who went into a bathroom with a famous man might have kept silent. Now the victim has shown courage and credibility.”
Rosell is clear: Alves would not have faced conviction under the old framework. “The consent law has replaced the law of impunity in these cases,” she asserts.
Will the verdict open new doors or is this a stepping stone away from accountability?
Experts see the ruling as a win in the fight against gender-based violence. “It is a solid verdict that lends credibility to the victim, countering the perception that a famous person cannot be condemned. Four and a half years is substantial, especially since there are no aggravating factors and a mitigating one, with no prior record,” says the prosecutor. She hopes it signals a broader deterrent for violators, regardless of wealth or status.
Rosell, meanwhile, believes the sentences about consent will mark a turning point. The key paragraph states that consent “must be given for each variety of sexual relations, since someone may consent to touching but not to penetration, or to oral sex but not vaginal, or vaginal sex with a condom but not without it.”
Humet adds that it matters Alves faced a nine-year restraining order and a five-year ban from working with minors, a provision introduced by the sí es sí law that affects his ability to coach in the future. This aspect, she says, underscores how the trial’s prominence matters in shaping public perception and the likelihood of reporting abuses by powerful individuals.
“A trial that captures public attention can help show there is no impunity and that calling out powerful people is possible,” Humet concludes, stressing that the idea of the perpetrator as an untouchable figure is being dismantled in the public imagination.