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

Abstract

Abstract: This thesis addresses the analysis and evaluation of sufficient and correct reasoning in the judgments issued by first-level judges in Ecuador, under the hypothesis that these rulings comply with the required constitutional and legal standards. The technique adopted is analytical, focusing on the reasoning of the judgments and the questionnaires for sufficiency and argumentative correctness. The study's analysis centers on Judgment No. 17294-2024-00739, concerning a criminal offense, specifically fourth-class injuries (Art. 396.4 COIP). The analyzed reasoning concludes that the judgment has met the standard of sufficient reasoning on both a normative and a factual level. The judge upheld the defendants' presumption of innocence, justifying the acquittal of two of them due to a lack of intent and the establishment of self-defense (Art. 29 COIP) for the third. The results determined that the resolution.