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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the reasoning contained in first-instance judicial decisions in Ecuador, using as a case study the judgment issued in process 17986-2024-00737, concerning a mutual consent divorce. The general objective is to assess whether the decision meets the standards of sufficient and correct reasoning established by the Constitution, the COGEP, and specialized legal doctrine. The analytic and descriptive methods were applied, supported by evaluation tools such as the sufficiency standard, the correct-reasoning questionnaire, and the EL SER technique for structural decomposition of judgments. The results show that the decision meets the formal requirements of judicial motivation, demonstrating normative coherence and factual consistency. However, it lacks deeper argumentative development based on doctrine and relevant case law. The study concludes that, although the judgment is valid and does not present defects warranting annulment, its reasoning remains basic rather than reaching rigorous doctrinal standards. Strengthening judicial argumentation is recommended to improve the quality of decisions.