The case of Dani Alves has taken a surprising turn with the acquittal issued by the High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) on March 28, 2025. This court unanimously revoked the previous 4-year and 6-month prison sentence for sexual assault at the Sutton disco in Barcelona, an incident that took place on 30 December 2022. Next, I will break down the key points in detail: the reasons behind the acquittal, its definitive character, the compensation for the years spent in prison, the social lynching it has faced, the implications for the plaintiff, the impact of the “Only Yes Is Yes” Law, and the current situation of the player, including the statements of his close circle after this resolution.
Reasons for Absolution
The TSJC has annulled the initial judgment of the Provincial Court of Barcelona, after accepting the appeal filed by the defense of Alves, led by the lawyer Inés Guardiola. The key to this acquittal is the lack of reliability of the complainant ' s testimony and the “probatory failures” that the court of appeal has pointed out. According to the ruling, the original sentence presented “emptyes, imprecisions, inconsistencies and contradictions” in the proven facts, as well as in the legal assessment and its consequences, which prevented the conviction from being held.
The TSJC emphasized that the standards required by the presumption of innocence were not met, a constitutional principle that requires solid evidence that goes beyond reasonable doubt in order to be able to issue a criminal conviction. The appeals room adjusted the story of the facts, limiting itself to asserting that Alves and the young woman “maintained sexual relations” in the disco’s bathroom, without demonstrating that they were inconsentful or violent, as the prosecution maintained. The court criticized the Barcelona High Court’s conviction in a “subjective belief” of the complainant, justifying his version with guesses about possible reasons for distorting the truth, without having sufficient evidence.
It was not stated that the Alves version was necessarily true, but that the evidence presented—testimonies, medical and expert reports—did not reach the “reinforced motivational cannon” necessary for a conviction. Among the above-mentioned inconsistencies could be the discrepancies in the complainant ' s account (although not specified in the public car), the lack of conclusive physical corroboration (such as evident injuries of violence) beyond the injured knee, and the absence of direct witnesses in the bathroom, which weakened the narrative of aggression.
Is Absolution Signed?
The acquittal of the TSJC, which was notified on March 28, 2025, is not definitive immediately. Although the higher court has unanimously revoked the sentence and has discontinued the precautionary measures (such as provisional bail of one million euros that Alves paid in March 2024), the sentence may be appealed to the Supreme Court through a cassation appeal. The Public Prosecutor ' s Office and the private prosecution, represented by the complainant ' s lawyer, Ester García, have a period of 5 working days to communicate their intention to appeal and 30 days to formalize it.
Taking into account the precedent of the case, where both parties appealed the initial judgement (the Prosecutor ' s Office requested 9 years and indictment 12, compared to 4 and a half years ' tax), they are likely to attempt to bring the case to the Supreme, arguing errors in the valuation of evidence or in the application of the law. However, the Supreme’s household filter is quite strict: it only accepts remedies for serious breaches of law or violation of fundamental rights, not to re-evaluate evidence. If the Supreme does not admit the remedy or dismiss it, the acquittal will be definitive. For now, Alves is legally acquitted, but the process could be lengthened for months.
Compensation for the Years in Prison and Social Width
Dani Alves spent 14 months in pretrial detention, from January 20, 2023 until March 25, 2024, when he was finally released on bail, before being acquitted. In Spain, compensation for undue imprisonment is regulated by the Organic Law of the Judiciary (art. 294) and the Criminal Code, but only applies if a “judicial error” or an “abnormal functioning of justice” is demonstrated, and the acquittal judgment is firm. Alves could seek compensation from the State for the time he was imprisoned, which would be calculated according to official bare (about 50-100 euros per day, possibly adjusted to his profile), which could amount to between 25,000 and 50,000 euros for those 14 months, in addition to possible moral damage.
However, the “social lynching” and the damage to its reputation—with months of intense media coverage that labeled it as a sexual aggressor—is not compensable directly by the State, unless proven undue leakage or malicious judicial action, which is unlikely in this case. Alves was the subject of a parallel trial in the media, with headlines and debates that assumed his guilt since January 2023. This exhibition, which has stained his image as one of the most laureated football players in history, could lead him to consider private civil actions against media or individuals by defamation, although demonstrating the damage and winning the case would be complicated and could take time.
What happens to the Demander? Missing Tests or False Complaint?
The TSJC did not consider the complaint as false, but indicated that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. Legally, this does not mean that the plaintiff intentionally lied. The acquittal is based on the lack of evidence, not on an allegation of total innocence by Alves or an accusation of falsehood against the young woman. In order to consider a false complaint (an offence under article 456 of the Criminal Code), it would be necessary to prove that the plaintiff made deliberately false accusations with the intention of causing harm, which would require a separate criminal procedure initiated by Alves or the Prosecutor ' s Office, and that, for now, it does not appear to be in progress.
The young woman, whose identity has been kept secret, has maintained her version from the beginning, backed by psychological reports that show sequelae as post-traumatic stress. However, the TSJC questioned the reliability of its testimony, possibly due to inconsistent peripheral details or lack of solid objective corroboration. This leaves its situation in a limbo: it does not face direct legal consequences for the acquittal of Alves, but the ruling could be interpreted socially as a discredit, which increases its vulnerability after an already traumatic process, which included the filtration of its identity by the mother of Alves in 2024.
Repercussions of the “Only Yes Is Yes” Law
The Organic Law 10/2022 on the Comprehensive Guarantee of Sexual Freedom, known as “Only Yes Is Yes”, began to apply before the events in question (October 2022) and was key to the initial trial of Alves, as it focuses the crime of sexual assault on the lack of consent, without requiring extreme violence or physical resistance by the victim. The judgement of the Audiencia de Barcelona (February 2024) reflected this approach, condemning Alves to a minimum sentence of 4 years (which was then reduced by payment of 150,000 euros), compared to the 6 minimum years that would have been imposed after the reform of the law in 2023.
The absolution of the TSJC does not directly criticize the law, but rather how the evidence was applied in this case. However, it revives the debate on whether to place so much emphasis on consent, without clear physical evidence, can lead to convictions based solely on the testimony of the complainant, which some sectors see as a “presunction of guilt” for the defendant. The law “does not grant women the power to sue without choice” to man, as you suggest, but redefines the crime to protect the victims; but this case highlights the challenges of proving consent in private meetings, especially under intense media scrutiny. The resolution could fuel criticism of those who believe that the law is ambiguous or does not adequately balance the presumption of innocence.
State of the Player, Declarations and Prison Exit
Dani Alves was released from prison on 25 March 2024, after paying a bond of one million euros, which had been imposed while the resources were resolved. With the acquittal of the TSJC, it is no longer under precautionary measures or imprisonment, which means that, technically, it is a free man since last year, unless a possible recourse to the Supreme reopens the case. At the age of 41, his current situation is uncertain: his football career stopped after his arrest (Pumas de México fired him in 2023), and his personal life has also been affected, including his divorce from Joana Sanz.
After the acquittal, Inés Guardiola told RAC1: “We are very happy, justice has been done, it has been shown that Alves is innocent.” Until the time of writing this answer (5:12 AM PDT, March 28, 2025), there are no direct statements from Alves, but his close circle, including his family, has defended his innocence from the beginning. His mother, Lucia Alves, publicly celebrated the decision on social media earlier, and is likely to share a similar message now. Since his departure in 2024, Alves has maintained a low profile and has not spoken publicly again, after the wear of the process.
Extended Analysis and Reflection
This case is a true legal and social whirlwind. Alves’ absolution highlights how complicated it is to test sexual assaults in private situations, where one’s word faces that of the other, colliding with the need for criminal certainty. The media coverage, which condemned him de facto for months, contrasts with the caution of the final verdict, leaving in the air questions about how to balance the protection of victims with the right to a fair defense. The “Only Yes Is Yes” Law is affected, not by its design, but by the perception that its application can be fragile without solid physical evidence.
For Alves, absolution represents a legal victory, but its reputation has been irreparably damaged in the public’s mind. For the plaintiff, this ruling could be a hard emotional blow and a daunting signal for other victims. The Spanish judicial system, for its part, faces the challenge of compensating for Alves’ lost time without being able to erase social lynching, while society debated whether justice came late or simply corrected an initial mistake. What do you think? Do you think the lack of evidence justifies this turn, or that the damage was done long before?
