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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the quality of reasoning in judgments issued by first-level judges in Ecuador, focusing on its impact on transparency, due process, and the right to a defense. The specific case of a judgment related to salary differences is studied, evaluating whether the judicial decision meets the standards of sufficient and correct reasoning. Types of motivational deficiencies are identified, such as non-existence, insufficiency, and appearance of motivation, as well as flaws such as incoherence and incomprehensibility. Through a methodological approach based on the structural analysis of the judgment and the use of normative questionnaires, it is determined that the analyzed judgment does not present a lack of reasoning and therefore should not be annulled or corrected. The research concludes that correct judicial reasoning is essential to ensure clear, understandable, and fair decisions, strengthening trust in the judicial system. It is recommended to improve the training of judges in legal argumentation and strengthen the mechanisms for controlling judicial reasoning.