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

Abstract

Abstract: This paper analyzes judicial reasoning within the framework of Article 177 of the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code, based on the study of a first-level criminal judgment. The central objective was to evaluate the correctness of the legal and factual basis, as well as the appropriateness of the applicable procedural remedies. Through the application of the correct reasoning questionnaire, strengths were identified in the subsumption of the facts to the criminal offense, but also deficiencies in the integration of constitutional and international norms, in the exhaustive evaluation of the evidence, and in the absence of measures for comprehensive reparation. The study concludes that the judgment should not be annulled, but rather corrected through an appeal, in order to improve the reasoning and guarantee effective judicial protection. The contribution of this research lies in offering a critical analysis that combines legal theory, international standards, and judicial practice, contributing to the strengthening of the culture of reasoned judgment in the Ecuadorian criminal justice system.