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 the case resolved in Pimampiro by Judicial Unit number 10310-2024-00011. A qualitative and documentary approach is used as the methodology, evaluating the sufficiency and correctness of the judicial decision based on jurisdictional laws and regulations. The results show that its structure is solid and valid, but it presents some substantive weaknesses such as the limited articulation of norms, facts, and evidence, as well as the absence of a balancing of rights and the reasoning focused on the inadmissibility of the case and the conflict of subsidiarity. The filing of a vertical appeal is noted. The main contribution lies in proposing operational criteria for evaluating judicial reasoning (sufficiency and correctness) in protective actions, strengthening decisional transparency and legal certainty, and defining the appropriate use of this guarantee in disputes of an administrative or contractual nature.