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

Abstract

Abstract: This paper analyzes the reasoning behind the judgment issued in enforcement proceeding No. 06335-2021-03201, with the purpose of determining whether it meets the standard of sufficient reasoning required by the Constitution and constitutional jurisprudence. To this end, a legal-dogmatic approach was applied, complemented by jurisprudential, doctrinal, and argumentative analysis, as well as the respective research techniques on sufficient and correct reasoning. The study reconstructed the factual and normative structure of the ruling, examined the assessment of evidence, and evaluated the internal coherence of the judicial reasoning. The results demonstrate that the judgment adequately develops the minimum constitutional structure: it identifies the applicable legal framework, analyzes the validity of the enforceable instrument, rigorously assesses the evidence, and provides reasoned grounds for the prevalence of the expert opinion deemed most appropriate. No deficiencies or flaws in the reasoning were found, therefore, the ruling complies with the parameters of constitutional validity. The research provides a replicable methodology for the motivational analysis of judgments, strengthening the argumentative quality and judicial transparency.