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

Abstract

Abstract: This paper analyzes the reasoning in judgments issued by first-instance judges in Ecuador, focusing on case No. 07335-2021-00080. First, the concept of reasoning is studied, differentiating between sufficient and correct reasoning. Furthermore, an analysis is conducted on how a judgment should be interpreted. The central elements are examined, such as the narration of the facts, identification of the problem, formulation of questions and sub-questions, and their answers. A distinction is also made between Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum, concluding with the decision in the case. The second chapter details the methodology used, including the objectives, hypotheses, research techniques, and resources employed to evaluate the quality of the judicial reasoning. The third chapter presents the results obtained, assessing whether the reasoning in the judgment meets the standards of sufficiency and correctness. In this sense, adequate judicial reasoning not only guarantees the transparency and legitimacy of the ruling, but also strengthens trust in the justice system. This research provides theoretical and practical tools to improve the reasoning behind judicial decisions in Ecuador.