Motivación en las sentencias emitidas por los jueces de primer nivel en Ecuador

Abstract

Abstract: This paper analyzes the motivation behind sentences issued by first-level judges in Ecuador, focusing on the case of attempted homicide. It examines the logical structure that a sentence should have, the importance of factual and normative grounds, and common errors such as inconsistency, inconsistency, and incomprehensibility. It studies the distinction between sufficient and correct motivation, its implications for due process, and the legal validity of decisions. It also addresses the case law of criminal proceedings, including concepts such as attempt, types of appeal (appeal, cassation, review, recourse on the facts, and double conformity), and their legal grounds. Finally, it analyzes the consequences of poor motivation: nullity of sentences, social distrust, judicial arbitrariness, and violation of human rights. The case study demonstrates how proper argumentation and assessment of evidence support a judicial decision, reinforcing the legitimacy of the judicial system and the protection of fundamental rights.