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

Abstract

Abstract: This research conducts a comprehensive analysis of the judicial reasoning issued by a first-level judge in Ecuador, as an essential pillar of the right to due process in the Ecuadorian criminal justice system. The different levels of reasoning in this case sufficient and correct will be reflected, and various motivational flaws, such as incoherence, irrelevance, incongruity, and incomprehensibility, which may compromise the procedural validity of a judicial decision, will be identified. Through a detailed study of Judgment No. 17296-2024-00140, processed through summary proceedings in a case of breach of trust, it is demonstrated how the correct presentation of the proven facts, in accordance with legal criteria, grounds the decision, guarantees respect for the rights of the parties, and prevents arbitrariness. Furthermore, the research examines the evolution of the doctrine and jurisprudence regarding argumentative sufficiency and its effects on legal certainty. The work concludes with a detailed, logical, and transparent rationale that not only strengthens legal certainty but also promotes accountability and helps restore public trust in those administering justice.