Dani Alves’ prison roadmap after being denied his freedom: up to four years in preventive

There is no appeal against the resolution of the Hearing to maintain Dani Alves in pretrial detention. However, in the future the defense of the former Barcelona player accused of sexual assault may again request the release of his client. The maximum period established by law in which Dani Alves can remain in pretrial detention is two years, extendable to another two, that is, the footballer could spend up to four years in prison without trial.

However, the sources consulted by Informalia assure that “the trial will not take long to come out” given that the investigation “is being rapid” and “all the tests have already been carried out.” The same sources also recall that “causes with defendants in pretrial detention take precedence and tend to be accelerated” and “more if possible in such a media case.” For all these reasons, they explain to us that the hearing could begin even “before summer or perhaps in September.”

As it became known this Tuesday, the Barcelona Court has rejected the appeal filed by the footballer’s defense and keeps him in provisional prison for an alleged sexual assault on a 23-year-old woman in a private room at the Sutton nightclub in Barcelona.

The court considers that there are numerous indications of guilt on the part of the former Barcelona player, and also argues that there is a risk of flight given the economic position and sufficient assets to evade Justice.

The Prosecutor’s Office and the private prosecution have maintained the request that Alves continue in prison opposing the appeal presented by his lawyer, Cristóbal Martell. The Audiancia de Barcelona not only “confirms the situation of provisional detention communicated and without bail of the investigated”, but also shares the postulates of the defense to keep the footballer in jail; the high penalty that he would face, the severe evidence of criminality found and the bulky economic capacity of Alves to be able to leave Spain easily.

The Court understands that the measures proposed by the defense to prevent the flight are sufficient to “neutralize the risk of flight that we have described as high”.