The situation
A mid-sized private school is facing the worst week in its history: a coach hired two years ago has been named over serious acts against a student, committed during the school’s own sports activities. The case is already in the hands of the Ministerio Público (the public prosecution service). At the emergency board meeting, positions split. The lawyer of a founding family proposes “shielding the institution”: quietly letting the coach go, negotiating with the family affected, and avoiding any written record “that could later be used against us”. The academic director proposes the opposite: cooperate fully with the authorities, review how the coach was hired and supervised, and document everything. Someone asks what everyone is thinking: “can the school, as an institution, end up answering for this?” The decision the board takes this week will define far more than this case.
◆ The comment on each course of action is generated by AI from this section’s legal framework, whose official texts are in Spanish. It orients you; always verify the article in the legal framework.
For whoever facilitates
Facilitator’s notes
The board’s question has a precise answer. The new Code introduces the criminal liability of legal persons: the entity answers for the acts of its subordinates where it also failed in its duties of direction, control or supervision (Art. 8, Ley 74-25, as worded by Ley 44-26), without that exempting the natural person (Art. 9, Ley 74-25). Public schools are exempt as State bodies, but a private school does fall within the regime (Art. 13, Ley 74-25). This regime has deferred entry into force: it applies three months after 5 August 2026 (Art. 31, Ley 44-26) — a window to get organised, not a permission not to. The same law sets out the way through: a school with a real compliance programme — a code of conduct, a risk map, training, a complaints channel with protection for the complainant, documentary traceability — can mitigate or even exclude its liability (Art. 8, Ley 74-25). Read the irony of option b: eliminating the documentary trail destroys exactly what would exonerate the school, and failing to inform or refraining from reporting are offences for which the legal person is also liable (Arts. 325 and 346, Ley 74-25). Options a and c go together: a is this week’s duty; c is the next decade’s protection. Option d confuses the coach’s criminal fate with the school’s own duties, which run from now. Question for the group: if we were asked today for evidence that we supervise our sports activities, what could we show in writing?
The team’s commentary
Two readings of this scenario
Español — The Spanish version is the reference text — the legal verification described in the audit report was carried out on it.
Audit report — the independent legal review of this material, with the errors we found and corrected (page in Spanish).
Comprehensive AI learning designed for educators, by educators. From awareness to mastery.