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

Abstract

Abstract: This paper analyzes the sufficiency and correctness of the judicial reasoning in a judgment issued in Ecuador, specifically related to the revocation of a disability pension. Using methodological instruments such as the sufficiency standard questionnaire and the correct reasoning questionnaire, the argumentative quality of the ruling was evaluated, concluding that the reasoning was insufficient and incorrect. The study incorporates doctrinal, constitutional, and jurisprudential foundations and demonstrates the lack of application of principles such as non-regression, enhanced protection for persons with disabilities, and the pro persona principle. Furthermore, it contrasts the legal and social consequences of poorly reasoned judicial decisions, proposing recommendations aimed at improving effective judicial protection. This research contributes to the understanding of the standards that judges must observe in a constitutional state of law and justice, and seeks to strengthen legal certainty and access to justice for priority groups.