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

Abstract

Abstract: This research critically analyzes Judgment No. 09210-2024-00051, issued by the Family, Women, Children, and Adolescents Judicial Unit of Durán, in which a constitutional precautionary measure was denied. The study argues that the judge should have granted it, given the evidence of the prerequisites of danger in delay and proportionality, in accordance with Articles 11.5 and 87 of the Constitution and Articles 26-28 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary and Constitutional Courts. Through a qualitative approach and jurisprudential analysis, the standards of sufficient and correct reasoning established by the Constitutional Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are examined. The results demonstrate deficient reasoning, a lack of case-specific analysis, and a disregard for the pro persona principle and effective judicial protection. An alternative model of judicial reasoning is proposed, in accordance with the parameters of proportionality and due process. The work reaffirms the need to strengthen judicial argumentation to guarantee effective constitutional justice in Ecuador.