Does the Supreme Court of Justice believe Alves? Five keys to understanding the ruling that acquitted him

The sentence that Friday acquitted footballer Dani Alves The sexual assault case has sparked reactions from the judiciary, politics, and feminist movement. But it has also raised many questions about the arguments of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) when it overturned the sentence handed down by the Barcelona Court, which considered it proven that the footballer had sexually assaulted a girl at the Sutton nightclub in late 2022.

The judges who acquitted Alves pointed out in the same sentence that revoking the initial sentence accusing the footballer of sexual assault I didn't mean to say "that the true hypothesis is the one maintained by the defendant's defense," who, after changing his story several times during the trial, argued that he and the complainant had consensual sex. This is because, for a conviction, the prosecution must prove its version, not the other way around. In other words, the defense doesn't have to prove that its explanation is true; it's enough to refute the prosecution's. Since, in the opinion of the TSJC, the complainant's statement is not sufficiently reliable to be considered conclusive evidence, the judges have prioritized the principle of the presumption of innocence to overturn the conviction.

Can Alves seek compensation for the previous conviction?

The law on the judiciary establishes that individuals who have been held in pretrial detention and are ultimately acquitted are entitled to compensation, which they must claim from the Ministry of Justice. The amount is set in each case according to established scales, although legal sources indicate that the basic compensation established by jurisprudence is approximately 25 euros for each day of deprivation of liberty. Alves sentenced Brians to approximately 14 months, 405 days, which would be equivalent to 10,125 euros according to this basic compensation, although the player could claim other factors such as the benefits he has lost during that time, since the Pumas football club dismissed him when he was arrested. One of the most prominent examples of acquittal after serving pretrial detention is former Barça president Sandro Rosell, who served 21 months and was awarded 18,000 euros, equivalent to 28.9 euros per day. Aside from that compensation, Alves will be able to recover the million euros bail he posted for his provisional release.

What role has the "only yes is yes" law played in this case?

Alves was sentenced under the first version of the law. only yes is yes, because it was the law in force on the day he was charged with assaulting Sutton, and like any defendant, the law in force at the time of the crime was applied. This law eliminated the legal definition of sexual abuse and included it in sexual assault, setting sentences of four to 12 years for assaults involving penetration. Alves's four and a half years in prison, therefore, were at the lower end of that range. However, this version of the law lasted only a few months and was, in fact, no longer in force when Alves was sentenced. The law was amended to toughen some sentences after it was noted that the original version led to numerous sentence reductions, and the minimum sentence for sexual assault involving violence or intimidation rose to six years in prison. This meant that, when Alves was sentenced, it was below the legal minimum at the time. However, this law had nothing to do with the change in the footballer's ruling, which was based on the different technical criteria applied by the Barcelona Court of Appeals and the High Court of Justice when assessing the evidence in the case.

What will happen next?

The ruling that the TSJC (High Court of Justice) released on Friday is a revision of the first ruling in this case, but it is not yet final. Any of those involved can file an appeal, and in fact, the Prosecutor's Office intends to do so in the coming days. The private prosecution could also do so, and after learning of the acquittal, it explained that it would await the complainant's decision, given that an appeal would prolong the proceedings and pose an emotional impact. Any appeals filed from now on will be resolved by the Supreme Court.

What value does the Supreme Court give to the victim's statement?

Specifically, the Supreme Court has developed jurisprudence in recent years regarding the validity of complainants' statements as conclusive evidence in cases of sexual assault. Since 2014, the court has recognized that the victim's testimony is especially important in these crimes because they are often committed in secret. Therefore, it has established a series of criteria that the woman's statement must meet when assessing its credibility. In fact, the Association of Women Judges has distanced itself from other judicial associations by calling in a statement for the application of this jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court.