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

Abstract

Abstract: This thesis analyzes the principle of reasoned decision-making in judgments issued by first-level judges in Ecuador, using as a case study the protective action filed by NN against the Council of the Judiciary. The study examines how the omission of sufficient and adequate reasoning in administrative acts affected fundamental rights, particularly the protection of motherhood, due process, and legal certainty. Through a doctrinal, jurisprudential, and normative approach, the standards required for proper reasoning are identified, highlighting the obligation of authorities to comprehensively consider the constitutional rights involved. The research demonstrates the need to strengthen argumentation in judicial and administrative resolutions to guarantee effective judicial protection and prevent violations of fundamental rights.