On August 4, Ester García, lawyer for the victim of the soccer player Dani Alves, presented a letter announcing the decision of the young woman to revoke the resignation of the civil action that she carried out in the statement of January 20.

In that court statement, the 23-year-old confirmed the rape complaint against the footballer that she filed two days after the alleged assault before the Mossos d’Esquadra. During that long appearance, magistrate Anna Marín Romance, who acted as a substitute for the holder, Concepción Cantón, already warned the victim that she had the right to claim compensation. The victim was surprised: “Compensation?”. The judge answered yes, that he had the right to claim for the damages caused. “No, I don’t want any”, answered the young woman. “In these cases, obviously not everything is repairable, but he has the right to it”, insisted the magistrate. “No”, answered the young woman for the third time.

The latest legislative reform of the so-called law of only yes is yes provides that the victim can revoke the waiver of the civil action if, for example, the consequences of the crime are more serious than those foreseen at the time of the waiver . The only condition is to do so before the parties submit their qualification briefs. And that’s exactly what the letter did. Submit the essay in August.

In the document, to which La Vanguardia has had access, the lawyer warns that the victim waived compensation “at the beginning of the procedure” when “she was not aware of the full consequences of the crime or the subsequent circumstances she would suffer, as was specified in the forensic medical report, with the development of anxious and depressive symptomatology of globally moderate intensity and, therefore, a significant impairment in several areas of daily functioning”. The letter was submitted in the summer, and today the victim remains on sick leave and undergoing psychological treatment.

It didn’t take twenty-four hours for the titular magistrate of court 15, Concepción Cantón, in charge of investigating the case, to revoke the resignation of the civil court.

That decision of the victim was made in parallel with the beginning of the conversations between Alves’ lawyer, Cristóbal Martell, and the victim’s lawyer, Ester García. Meetings at the request of the player’s lawyer that were carried out with complete discretion, of which the Prosecutor’s Office was aware, and which have been confirmed to La Vanguardia by four sources related to the accused and the public ministry. Neither Martell nor García have addressed this newspaper in relation to this matter.

Martell sought in the meetings what is known as an agreement of conformity. A pact between the parties, which had to have the approval of the prosecutor Elisabet Jiménez and according to which Dani Alves had to admit that on the morning of December 31 he penetrated the young woman he had met that morning at the Sutton nightclub in Barcelona

In that first attempt at agreement, three meetings were held. In the last one, García delegated the conversations to a colleague. A monetary amount was put on the table, lower than that requested by the prosecution, and a sentence of three years was considered for the player, with the highly qualified mitigating factor of reparation of the damage that allowed to lower the pity

The agreement had to be approved by the player, who offered to hand over more money than the victim initially claimed, but refused to accept the facts. Coinciding with that moment, Alves decided to change lawyers. To Martell’s surprise, lawyer Inés Guardiola took over the defense and resumed negotiations with Ester García to reach an agreement. The talks are “stuck” again, according to several sources. The defense has put on the table the first amount requested by the prosecution, but the victim is no longer satisfied with a sentence of less than four years in prison.

Compliance can come at any time, but before trial. At the moment, the Court of Barcelona has already reserved a couple of weeks in February to hold a trial that each of the parties, for very different reasons, would prefer not to hold.