Tricky Translations between most Latin American countries and the U.S.

By David Bustamante Segovia

As a professional translator, a law student in Latin America, and a legal English student in the U.S., I tend to see many errors that arise from literal translations between Spanish and English that do not take into account judicial structure differences, among other types of differences (e.g., view of the law). Employing my background of studies in comparative law, I would like to go over some of the most common errors and propose solutions.

• Civil Law and Common Law

I’ve often seen ENG-SPA translators translate Civil Law as “Derecho civil.” Although it is a valid translation in specific contexts, it almost always refers to Roman-influenced countries regarding their legal system, in which case it is to be translated as “Derecho continental” or “países de influencia romana.” I also tend to see Hispanic translators translate “Common Law” into Spanish as “Derecho común” when it refers to not-Roman influenced legal systems, that is, “Derecho anglosajón” (law of English-speaking countries).

• Jurisdiction and Competency/Competencia

The legal English term “jurisdiction” will almost always mean the legal Spanish “competencia.” Hence “competencia de” or “sobre asuntos civiles” (“jurisdiction over civil matters,” not “competency on or over…”). The English term “competency” will almost always have the common meaning, not equivalent to the legal Spanish “competencia,” that is, an aptitude or skill in a particular field. Hence: “Are you competent to…?” In legal Spanish, however, “competencia” will always refer to the legal English “jurisdiction.”

Thus, the following types of jurisdiction in the U.S. ought to be translated as:

• General jurisdiction             competencia general
• Limited jurisdiction             competencia limitada
• Subject-matter jurisdiction             competencia según la materia
• Concurrent jurisdiction competencia conjunta o concurrente, o doble competencia
• Exclusive jurisdiction competencia exclusiva
• Appellate jurisdiction competencia de segunda instancia
• Territorial jurisdiction competencia territorial o según el territorio
• Personal jurisdiction             competencia personal (o fuero, en Colombia) (o competencia concursal, Uruguay)

• Long-arm jurisdiction competencia extraterritorial

• Bankruptcy Law

Depending on the Civil Law country, “Bankruptcy Law” is not known as a branch of the law or a field of law but rather simply as a particular situation within Private/Civil/Finance Law. In all my years, never have I heard “Derecho de Bancarrota/Insolvencia” as a field of Law. I have heard “derecho de bancarrota,” which, without capital letters, means the right of an individual to declare himself as such. I have also heard of and read about “Ley de Bancarrota” (Bankruptcy Act).

• Presidente de la Corte Suprema de Justicia

Simply, “Chief Justice” or “Justice Rodríguez,” thereby avoiding translating “President of the Supreme Court of…”.

• Derecho probatorio = Evidentiary Law / Rules of Evidence (not Probatory Law, although valid in specific contexts).

• Pretensiones de la demanda o petitorio = Prayer for relief, not lawsuit demands.

• Prescripción de la acción = statute of limitations, not expiration of the legal action
• Indemnizar. Normally, you’d want to use the verbs “relief,” “remedy,” or “award,” not “compensation” nor “indemnization” (the UK tends to use this last one in certain contexts).
• Derechos adquiridos = vested rights (not “acquired…”). 

Short examples of other relatively tricky translations in a criminal context could be homicidio culposo, which almost always is translated as “negligent homicide” instead of its more literal version (i.e., “culpable homicide”), especially in the U.S. Also, “voluntary manslaughter,” which in Spanish would be crimen pasional (“crime of passion”) or ira e intenso dolor (“rage and intense pain”), depending on the Civil Law country you are in.

Although written or referred to differently, these last examples all challenge the mens rea element (criminal intent or evil mind) in that they suggest that no malice aforethought (“dolo” in Spanish) existed. “Involuntary manslaughter” (resulting from criminal negligence or recklessness, or from dangerous or impaired driving) can as well, and Colombia and Spain know this as dolo eventual (“eventual” or “random” mens rea, if translated literally).

I hope to have helped some colleagues with this recommendations and will continue to collect more common errors so that we can go over them in the future.

About the Author

David Bustamante Segovia (M.A.) is a Puerto Rican pedagogue and legal translator residing in Colombia. He’s studied Law in both Colombia and the U.S. and has worked for the IFC (World Bank), the Ministry of Environment of Colombia, and different Universities as an academic and legal translator. In 2017 he was appointed special translator to the U.S. Navy Mission in Colombia’s Department of Defense and to the U.S. Embassy’s Continuing Promise (CP17) in Riohacha (Colombia). Currently, he translates books into English and Spanish, besides writing his own. He graduated Cum Laude from Psychology (USC, Puerto Rico) and with honors from his master’s degree in Journalism (UR, Colombia). E-mail is: te.bustamante.z@gmail.com. Professional Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/TEBustamante.