Motivación en las Sentencias de los Jueces de Primer Nivel en Ecuador

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the quality of judicial reasoning in first-level judgments in Ecuador, focusing on a criminal traffic case involving serious injuries. The central objective was to evaluate the application of the constitutional standard of reasoned judgments (Art. 76.7 L, CRE) (Ecuador A. N., Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, 2008), examining the correct factual, legal, and logical grounding of the rulings. The work was structured around the study of the conviction handed down against Klever Raúl Contreras Valenzuela by the Judge of the Northern Judicial Unit No. 2 of Guayaquil. Through the qualitative case analysis methodology, it was concluded that the judgment is duly reasoned, fully complying with the triple requirement of legal, factual, and logical grounding. It was demonstrated that the Judge legitimately exercised sound judgment by prioritizing the Investigative Report and the prosecution's testimonies to establish the sole guilt of the defendant for the improper transfer and the flight. The study concludes that this sentence is a model of the correct subsumption of the proven facts to the criminal offense of traffic-related injuries, confirming the validity of the five-year sentence.