Spain's Deputy PM calls Alves acquittal a 'shame'

Spain's Deputy PM calls Alves acquittal a 'shame'

First Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister María Jesús Montero labeled the acquittal of former footballer Dani Alves a "shame," arguing that "the testimony of young, brave women who dare to accuse the powerful" takes precedence over the presumption of innocence. She made these remarks at the PSOE Provincial Congress in Jaén, trinc the unanimous decision by the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) to overturn the four-and-a-half-year prison sentence. The appeals court found the complainant's account "unreliable," citing "gaps, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and contradictions."

The ruling was signed by three women and one man. This detail, which would typically be a footnote in other cases, became the center of controversy: the government's criticism was not directed at just any court, but at a predominantly female panel that acquitted a celebrity. Consequently, the issue shifted from a judicial case to a political struggle over legal interpretation.

Montero's exact words and the backlash

The Deputy PM added that it is troubling that "a victim's testimony is still questioned" and expressed solidarity with the complainant: "You are not alone; we stand with you." Taken at face value, this is a statement of support for someone reporting abuse. Legally interpreted, however, it suggests that testimony alone suffices for conviction. The distinction between these two readings fundamentally concerns the rule of law.

Judicial and prosecutorial associations responded collectively. As reported by national media, their argument is that "it is essential for public representatives to respect the work of judges" and that rulings are "made after a thorough analysis of evidence presented in accordance with current legislation." This is not merely a matter of sensitivity, but of separation of powers.

The PSOE attempted to lower the temperature. Party sources attributed Montero's comments to "frustration" with the verdict and admitted that next time they "could explain it better." In essence: no retraction, but an acknowledgment of the noise. "Frustration" is an interesting word to describe the stance of the minister controlling the Treasury.

Why the Alves case has become a political battleground

The TSJC overturned the conviction and released the Brazilian player, who had spent several months in pre-trial detention for the alleged sensual assault at Barcelona's Sutton nightclub in 2022. The court did not acquit on technicalities; it examined the substance of the testimony and deemed it insufficient. This is the uncomfortable point, as it dismantles the narrative that the acquittal resulted from legal formalism.

In harsher analyses circulating, the offensive against judges is not accidental. It is argued that the government attacks the judiciary because it is one of the few remaining checks on its power, and discrediting it is part of a broader strategy. This is a hypothesis, not a proven fact, but it explains why a sensual assault case is being debated in terms of institutional architecture.

The opposing view, defended by the Deputy PM, starts from a different premise: that accusations by women against powerful men rarely reach trial, and judicial skepticism acts as a secondary punishment. This is a legitimate debate. The problem lies in where it takes place: at a political rally, not in a law faculty.

The precedent nobody wants to name

The comparison hovering in the background is the "Only Yes is Yes" law, whose application led to releases and reduced sentences that the government itself later had to correct. That episode taught an uncomfortable lesson: legislating based on slogans has measurable consequences in specific rulings. Now the slogan is that a woman's word comes first. The obvious question is what happens when that word is not enough for a court.

A scenario often raised with irony in sharper analyses is this: if the criterion is that an accusation equals a conviction, then any accusation against a public official should suffice. No one pushes this argument to its logical conclusion because it self-destructs. However, it serves to measure the scope of what was said.

---

The Supreme Court remains the final arbiter. If it upholds the acquittal, the Executive will have to decide whether to maintain the framework that justice is patriarchal even when the ruling is signed by three women. If it reverses the decision, the criticism of the judges will have been not only unnecessary but premature. In either case, the presumption of innocence will remain where it belongs: in the Constitution, not at a rally.