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

Abstract

Abstract:This thesis topic is highly relevant in the judicial field. This research examines the fulfillment of the constitutional duty to provide reasons in the judgments of first-level judicial units in Ecuador. It begins with the problem that deficient reasoning (apparent, insufficient, or contradictory) compromises effective judicial protection and due process. Through a mixed-methods analysis that is, quantitative analysis of case files and qualitative analysis it was possible to diagnose the most frequent flaws in reasoning, such as lack of evidentiary analysis, lack of logic, and omission of citing relevant legal provisions. This work is based on an empirical and systematic diagnosis of the quality of judicial argumentation, transcending subjective criticism. It provides a typology of flaws that serves as an evaluation tool. We know that the reasoning behind the judgments issued by first-level judges in Ecuador is of great importance to the health of the justice system, as it addresses the pillar of the legitimacy of judicial decisions. In my case, finding a judgment that fully complies with the requirements of reasoning was tangible proof that, despite time constraints and workload, first-level judges in Ecuador have the capacity to issue exemplary rulings. Ultimately, this work is a call for judicial excellence, demonstrating that when a judgment is complete and reasoned, legal certainty is fully guaranteed and public trust in the justice system is strengthened.