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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the reasoning in Judgment No. 17960-2010-1387, applied to the process of terminating alimony payments; starting from the constitutional premise that every resolution must be duly substantiated to guarantee due process and the right to defense, as established in Article 76 of the Constitution of Ecuador. We analyze sufficient reasoning, which requires clarity and minimum coherence to be valid; and correct reasoning, understood as the best possible legal and factual argumentation, avoiding arbitrariness on the part of the judges; in addition, we analyze deficiencies in reasoning such as non-existence, insufficiency, and the appearance of motivation with its corresponding flaws (incoherence, irrelevance, incongruity, and incomprehensibility), which can lead to nullity. all supported by the binding jurisprudence of Judgment No. 1158-17-EP/21 issued by the Constitutional Court. Finally, the standard of sufficiency was analyzed and applied to Judgment No. 17960-2010-1387, determining that the judge adequately justified the resolution, considering both the legal framework and the factual circumstances, demonstrating a well-founded, clear decision in accordance with the principle of legality.