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

Abstract

Abstract: The study examines how top-level judges in Ecuador develop the reasoning behind their rulings, considering that this component defines the clarity and legitimacy of judicial decisions. It analyzes common practices, constitutional requirements, and recurring difficulties that reveal argumentative limitations and generate uncertainty for the parties seeking to understand the reasoning used to resolve their disputes. The research identifies that insufficient reasoning weakens the internal coherence of the ruling, hinders the proper evaluation of evidence, and affects the applied legal interpretation. This increases the likelihood of appeals and diminishes public trust in the administration of justice, highlighting the need for guidelines that direct judges toward a clearer and more structured exposition of their reasoning. Based on this analysis, the study proposes strengthening judicial reasoning through criteria that facilitate transparent, orderly argumentation linked to procedural principles, so that the ruling not only resolves the case but also provides legal certainty and reaffirms the judge's role as a guarantor of rights and as an actor in the legal process. fundamental in consolidating a reliable judicial system.