The victim in Dani Alves case spent the trial days under medication and in a fragile emotional state. It marked the culmination of the nightmare she endured since making the complaint, on the night of the Brazilian player’s alleged assault in the Sutton nightclub restroom. This was how Ester García, the complainant’s lawyer, described the ordeal on Catalan Radio, adding that the chief fear was the potential disclosure of her client’s identity.
For this reason, García criticized how the victim was treated by certain parts of the media, noting she went into a panic when several reporters reached out to her. The lawyer explained that at one point someone showed up at the victim’s home to verify whether she lived there, prompting the decision to change address and relocate.
Another painful moment occurred when a video identifying her surfaced abroad and some Spanish outlets broadcast it. The victim reportedly told her lawyer, I have just been violated again. During the trial, a close friend testified that the victim received psychological support during the investigative period and that she faced psychiatric treatment when those images were leaked.
Giving Voice to the Accused
The publication intensified the harm to the victim, as her fears materialized and the media attention complicated trial preparations. García stressed that the leak served the accused’s interest by trying to prevent the complainant from testifying under normal conditions.
The victim had chosen to shield her identity because people in her circle did not know she was the complainant, not even her grandparents who learned the news from the media. The lawyer reiterated that the ruling supports the witness’s version of what happened and that, moving forward, the victim hopes to rebuild her life once the judicial decision becomes public. She also noted that some reporting had caused substantial harm by focusing on the victim and giving a platform to the accused to ridicule her.
Offline Struggles
The victim faced additional health-related challenges, including hearing remarks in a bar suggesting she was only after money, made by people who did not know who she was. The moment a television news segment aired in a waiting room, others began discussing her situation. As a precaution, she was barred from using the internet for a period.
Even on the day the verdict was announced, García and her client remained at the lawyer’s office as media outlets arrived. They had to move her away from the premises because she was overwhelmed. The attorney stressed that it is not justifiable to instrumentalize a case for sensational media purposes.
Regarding the effect of the media scrutiny on the law practice, the lawyer said that in more than two decades of work she had never seen such a media presence at her door. It disrupted the support she provides to other women. She recalled that some clients even had to be discreet, calling from a parking lot to avoid being seen when visits were scheduled because cameras were present at the office entrances.