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

Abstract

Abstract: This thesis aims to analyze the reasoning in judgments issued by first-level judges in Ecuador, emphasizing the sufficiency and correctness of the grounds for judicial decisions. Adequate reasoning in judgments is fundamental to guaranteeing transparency, legitimacy, and the proper administration of justice, essential pillars of the rule of law. The study is based on an exhaustive review of legal literature on judicial reasoning, breaking down concepts such as sufficient reasoning, correct reasoning, ratio decidendi, and obiter dictum. Furthermore, criteria are established for the analysis of judgments, focusing on the argumentative structure and the clear explanation of the facts and legal issues presented. The methodology adopted is qualitative and legal-analytical, based on a documentary review of selected first-instance judgments, complemented by critical analysis techniques that allow for the evaluation of the argumentative quality and the sufficiency of the reasoning in the judicial decisions. The results show that, while there has been progress in the reasoning behind judgments, deficiencies persist in the quality and depth of the justification, which can affect public trust in the judicial system. The implications of these findings are discussed, and recommendations are proposed to strengthen judicial training and improve the standards of reasoning within the judiciary. This research contributes to a critical understanding of the judicial decision-making process in Ecuador and offers valuable input for its improvement.