The defense of the young woman who accused the former footballer Dani Alves of sexual assault has announced that she will appeal the recent acquittal ruling issued by the Catalan High Court of Justice (TSJC). The defense argues that there is a clear contradiction with the previous ruling from the Provincial Court of Barcelona, which convicted the accused.
The victim’s lawyer expressed her confusion to the media, stating, “I cannot legally explain to my client how this sentence was produced,” visibly outraged by the turn the judicial process has taken. According to the lawyer, the TSJC’s reasoning not only contradicts the facts already established by the earlier court, but also exposes a concerning lack of consistency within the judicial system.
The TSJC’s ruling was made unanimously by four judges—one man and three women—two of whom were described in some media outlets as “progressive” judges, and one referred to as an “expert in gender issues,” according to El Debate. However, the presence of women or specific ideological profiles should not be used as a legitimacy argument for a judicial sentence. What should guarantee the ruling is the legal reasoning presented, not the gender or supposed ideological sensitivity of those who sign it. Moreover, anyone who has defended victims in various fields knows that many women who have held positions of equality, or who are “gender experts,” have acted against the victims.
When two courts issue radically opposing rulings based on the same facts—one convicting and the other acquitting—it raises a legitimate concern about the functioning of justice. This ruling highlights the lack of solid training based on scientific evidence with social impact in the judicial system. Something is wrong when the justice system provides such contradictory responses in a sexual violence case.
Beyond the symbolism of who judges, the focus should be on how the facts and consent are interpreted, especially in a context where the justice system is expected to incorporate updated scientific, legal, and social criteria. The presence of three women or a gender expert in the courtroom cannot be the argument supporting a verdict. What matters most is the legal reasoning and its consistency with the rights of all parties, particularly the victims.
We will have to wait until the full ruling is accessible to analyze the legal reasoning that contradicts the Provincial Court of Barcelona’s decision and support the distraught victim, who cannot understand why her testimony is now being discredited.
Article translated from Diario Feminista
