Daniel Alves’ defense suffered a hard setback this Tuesday (21). Lawyers for the player, who has been detained for a month, went to the Spanish court to ask for his provisional release, but the appeal was denied by the three judges who analyzed the case. The fear of the magistrates is that the Brazilian flees to his country of origin.
If he escapes to Brazil, the player may never return to Spain, as there is no extradition agreement between the two countries. Alves’ defense presented the judges with alternatives for the Brazilian’s freedom, such as the immediate delivery of the passport, daily attendance at a local police station and the use of an electronic ankle bracelet, but did not convince the judges.
For the magistrates, Daniel Alves has enough financial resources to rent a plane and leave Spain, or even do it by land, to neighboring countries. The player has a fixed residence in Brazil and a “series of businesses in the country”, considered the judges.
New change in defense version is not official
Information circulates on social networks that Daniel Alves’ defense would have again changed the player’s version of the events that occurred in the Spanish nightclub. According to journalist Cesc Maideu, from the Catalan newspaper We buy, in his last statement, the Brazilian stated that the young woman would have harassed him and that he had not spoken about it before to “protect her”. “The truth is that I wanted to protect this young woman,” Alves reportedly said.
So far, the new change in the player’s version has not been publicized either by defense lawyers or by the Spanish Public Prosecutor’s Office.
remember the case
A 23-year-old Spanish woman claims that Alves raped her in a Barcelona nightclub on December 30 last year. The Brazilian has already presented two different versions of the crime. First, he denied that he knew the young Spanish woman and that they had met at the club in Barcelona.
Afterwards, he admitted that he knew the victim and that he had sexual relations with her. However, he claimed that they would have been consensual. The young woman maintains the same version of the fact since she gave her first statement, on January 4 of this year.
Editing: Thalita Pires
Leave a Reply