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

Abstract

Abstract: This study examines the reasoning behind a criminal sentence issued by a first-level judge in Ecuador within an abbreviated procedure, based on the analysis of a case concerning the trafficking of controlled chemical substances. An evaluation matrix based on the standards of the Constitutional Court was applied, distinguishing between sufficient, nonexistent, insufficient, and apparent reasoning, as well as the defects of incoherence, irrelevance, incongruity, and incomprehensibility. The work reviews the normative framework of Article 76 of the Constitution and the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code, in addition to relevant jurisprudence, to assess the correspondence between proven facts, applicable norms, and the decision. The results show that the sentence identifies the facts, establishes the evidence, substantiates the elements of the crime, and verifies the defendant's consent, exceeding the constitutional threshold of sufficiency, although it reveals areas for improvement in explaining the proportionality of the sentence. The research proposes a replicable argumentative framework that facilitates citizen and judicial oversight, strengthens due process, and contributes to a culture of transparent and rational decision-making in the administration of criminal justice.