When describing the Spanish judiciary, there is a peculiar context in which the adjective moderno cannot be rendered as “modern,” and failure to recognize that fact could prove a source of serious translation mistakes. For example, the expression magistrado más moderno de la Sala Primera del Tribunal Supremo does not refer to the most modern or fashionable of the judges, but rather to the “judge with the least seniority in the Civil Division of the Supreme Court.”

“Seniority” is of course antigüedad, and magistrado más moderno denotes the judge with the least seniority (but not necessarily the youngest) on a given court or among a panel of judges, while magistrado más antiguo describes the judge with the most seniority (but not necessarily the oldest).

In Spain judges’ seniority is determined each year in the Escalafón de la Carrera Judicial (Career Judges Seniority Ranking), prepared by the Comisión Permanente del Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Standing Committee of the General Council of the Judiciary). And being the más moderno is significant in many instances. As an example (there are many others), regarding deliberations and voting to reach a decision and render judgment, the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial provides that concluida la discusión de cada asunto, se procederá a la votación, que comenzará por el Juez o Magistrado más moderno y seguirá por orden de menor antigüedad, hasta el que presidiere (Art. 157).

distracción; distraction

There are legal contexts in which these terms may indeed be cognates when they denote a “loss of focus, attention or interest,” as in distracción del conductor al volante, referring to a driver becoming distracted while driving (“distraction at the wheel”).

But in Spanish criminal law distracción is also used in academic writing to denote the fraudulent taking of money or property, often as a synonym for malversación or appropiación indebida (“embezzlement” or “misappropriation”). Thus, as examples, the offense of malversación (or) distracción de caudales públicos on the part of a civil servant (funcionario) may perhaps be rendered as “embezzlement of public monies (or) funds,” while a company director’s distraccion de dinero o activo patrimonial may describe the “misappropriation of corporate monies or assets.”

In other respects, in the offense of distracción del curso de las aguas, the term distracción refers to the “unlawful diversion of water from its natural course.” This has been described variously in English as “water theft” or “illegal tapping of water supplies,” and in US state criminal codes often falls under the offense of “defrauding (or) unlawfully interfering with a public utility.”

When referring to certain types of damage to the environment (daños medioambientales), these terms are often cognates, as in contaminación medioambiental (“environmental contamination”) or contaminación radioactiva (“radioactive contamination”).

But in this same context contaminación is just as often rendered as “pollution” rather than “contamination.” “Environmental pollution” and “radioactive pollution” are quite common, as are similar expressions such as contaminación atmosférica (“air pollution”), contaminación de las aguas (“water pollution”), contaminación acústica (“noise pollution”) and contaminación lumínica (“light pollution”). Likewise, in this context contaminantes may be rendered as “contaminants” or “pollutants.”

In other respects, “contamination” is used in criminal forensics in expressions such as “contamination of evidence” or “contamination of DNA samples.” These may be rendered respectively as contaminación de pruebas and contaminación de muestras de ADN.

And, as a final example, lately in the Spanish press, journalists who disagree with judicial decisions often use the term jueces contaminados. In English the expression “contaminated judges” generally denotes judges who have a conflict of interest or who have already been involved or ruled on a related case. In contrast, in Spain jueces contaminados appears to be a term intended to accuse judges of a lack of impartiality when adjudicating politically sensitive matters.