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

Abstract

Abstract: This paper analyzes the reasoning behind the first-instance judgment issued on April 27, 2021, in case No. 23281-2021-01230, concerning a protective action related to the application of Article 25 of the Organic Law of Humanitarian Support. The objective of this research is to evaluate whether the judicial reasoning developed in said judgment meets the standards of sufficient and correct reasoning established by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador and the theory of legal argumentation. To this end, a qualitative legal-argumentative analysis methodology is employed, based on the application of the Questionnaire on the Standard of Sufficiency of Reasoning and the Questionnaire on Correct Reasoning to the judicial decision under study. The results demonstrate that the judgment meets the standard of sufficient reasoning, as it contains the minimum normative and factual grounds necessary to understand the decision and exercise control over it. Furthermore, it is concluded that the judgment achieves an acceptable level of proper reasoning, although it presents aspects that could be improved in the depth of the factual analysis. The study contributes to the critical analysis of constitutional judgments and to the strengthening of judicial reasoning as a guarantee of due process.