Soccer star Dani Alves found guilty of rape, sentenced to four and a half years in prison
Barcelona (PTI): Dani Alves, one of the most successful soccer players of his generation, was found guilty of raping a woman in a Barcelona nightclub and sentenced to four years and six months in prison.
The former Brazil and Barcelona right back was on Thursday convicted in Spain under a new sexual liberty law that emphasises the lack of consent of the victim as key to determining sex crimes.
A three-judge panel at the Barcelona Provincial Court convicted the 40-year-old Alves of sexual assault for the incident on December 31, 2022.
The court ordered Alves to pay 150,000 euros (USD 162,000) in compensation to the victim, banned him from approaching the victim's home or place of work, and from communicating with her by any means for nine years.
''I still believe in the innocence of Mr Alves,'' Inés Guardiola, Alves' lawyer, said. ''I need to study the ruling, but I can tell you that of course we will appeal.'' Guardiola said Alves was ''calm and collected'' when he heard the verdict in court.
''We are satisfied,'' David Sáenz, a member of the victim's legal team, said, ''Because this verdict recognises what we have always known, that the victim told the truth and that she has suffered.'' The victim's lawyer, Ester García, said on Wednesday she and her client would not be present for the verdict.
The victim said Alves raped her in the bathroom of a Barcelona nightclub on the morning of December 31, 2022. The court considered it proven that the victim did not consent to sex and there was evidence, in addition to the defendant's testimony, that she was raped.
Alves denied during the three-day trial this month that he raped the woman, testifying to the court ''I am not that kind of man.'' State prosecutors had sought a nine-year prison sentence for Alves while the lawyers representing his accuser wanted 12 years. His defense asked for his acquittal, or if found guilty a one-year sentence plus 50,000 Euros compensation for the victim.
The sentence of four years and six months is near the lowest sentence for a rape conviction, which when the rape took place was penalized by four to 12 years under Spanish law. That has since been modified to six to 12 years. The court in its sentence said it considered favorably for Alves that he had ''before the trial paid the court 150,000 Euros to be given to the victim without any conditions attached.'' Sáenz said his legal team did not agree with the application of the extenuating circumstance, saying the money did not compensate the harm done to their client. During the trial, medical experts testified she was suffering from post-traumatic stress.
''Clearly (it does not compensate), but that is what the court decided,'' Sáenz said. ''We have to examine the sentence to see if its contents are adequate for his acts.'' The state prosecutor's office said it will study the verdict and consider whether to appeal.
Spain Deputy Prime Minister Yolanda Díaz said she hoped the verdict ''serves as an exemplary measure for all the sexist behaviours that women suffer in all areas of our lives.'' The Alves case was the first high-profile sex crime since Spain overhauled its legislation in 2022 to make consent central to defining a sex crime in response to an upswell of protests after a gang-rape case during the San Fermin bull-running festival in Pamplona in 2016. The legislation popularly known as the ''only yes means yes'' law defines consent as an explicit expression of a person's will, making it clear that silence or passivity do not equal consent. The law, however, initially led to reduced sentences for hundreds of sex offenders because it set up lower minimum sentences, like the one applied to Alves, before being reformed.
Irene Montero, the former equality minister who championed the ''only yes means yes'' law, welcomed the ruling.
''The sentence against Dani Alves clearly establishes that he committed sexual assault because the victim did not consent. It is the result of the feminist fight for the right to sexual freedom and for putting consent at the center,'' she wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
Guardiola based her defense during the trial on video from the nightclub security cameras that she said showed how the woman danced "with sexualized movements" that ''showed her interest'' in Alves before the alleged assault.
García, the victim's lawyer, said at the close of the trial that the new law made it irrelevant how her client may have behaved with Alves beforehand.
''I don't care (how she was dancing), when she said No', that meant No.' That is why the law was changed,'' García said. ''The debate is no longer whether the victim put up resistance.'' Alves has been in jail since being detained on January 20, 2023. His requests for bail were denied because the court considered him a flight risk. Brazil does not extradite its own citizens when they are sentenced in other countries.
The victim told state prosecutors she danced with Alves and willingly entered the nightclub bathroom, but that later when she wanted to leave he would not let her. She said he slapped her, insulted her and forced her to have sexual relations against her will.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC dismisses pleas seeking review of 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage
New Delhi, Jan 9: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking to review its October 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
A five-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha and Dipankar Datta took up about 13 petitions related to the matter in chambers and dismissed them.
"We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We further find that the view expressed in both the judgements is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed," the bench said.
It said the judges have carefully gone through the judgements delivered by Justice (since retired) S Ravindra Bhat speaking for himself and for Justice (since retired) Hima Kohli as well as the concurring opinion expressed by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, constituting the majority view.
The bench also rejected a prayer made in the review petitions for hearing in an open court.
According to practice, the review pleas are considered in chambers by the judges.
The new bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the present CJI, recused from hearing the review petitions on July 10, 2024.
Notably, Justice P S Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench comprising five judges which delivered the verdict, as former CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI Chandrachud on October 17, 2024, refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriages and held there was "no unqualified right" to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.
The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of LGBTQIA++ persons so that they didn't face discrimination in accessing goods and services available to others, safe houses known as "garima greh" in all districts for shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence, and dedicated hotlines in case of trouble.
In its judgement, the bench held transpersons in heterosexual relationships had the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions.
It said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship could be only done through an "enacted law".
The five-judge Constitution bench delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing the legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it was within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such a union.
While former CJI Chandrachud wrote a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Kaul penned a 17-page judgement where he broadly agreed with the former's views.
Justice Bhat, who authored an 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the former CJI, including on applicability of adoption rules for such couples.
Justice Narasimha in his 13-page verdict was in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that queerness was a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" notion.
In his judgement, the former CJI recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance of forming a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of entitlements of such couples in a union.
The LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court, which decriminalised consensual gay sex, moved the apex court seeking validation of same-sex marriages and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners sought the apex court to use its plenary power besides the "prestige and moral authority" to push the society to acknowledge such a union and ensure LGBTQIA++ persons led a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
