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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the quality of reasoning in judgments issued by first-level judges in Ecuador, using as a case study the ruling issued in the case of COOPROGRESO LTDA. v. defendant. The study focuses on determining whether the judgment complies with the constitutional and legal parameters of reasoning, specifically with the principles of due process, congruity, reasonableness, and sufficient legal foundation. To this end, a qualitative approach was applied through documentary analysis of the judgment, contrasting its arguments with the provisions of the Constitution, the Organic Code of the Judiciary (COFJ), and the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code (COIP). The results show that, while the judgment presents a basic structure of reasoning, there are gaps in the presentation of the facts, in the evaluation of evidence, and in the legal justification, which affects the clarity and soundness of the ruling. It is concluded that the judicial reasoning in this case does not reach an optimal standard, which demonstrates the need to strengthen the argumentative skills of judges and promote a judicial culture oriented towards transparent, complete and duly reasoned decisions.