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

Abstract

Abstract: This paper analyzes the judicial reasoning in judgments issued by first-level judges in Ecuador, considering its relevance as a constitutional guarantee within due process and effective judicial protection. Through the study of a specific civil judgment, argumentative deficiencies that compromise the validity of the ruling were identified, such as insufficiency, incoherence, and incongruity of reasoning. The analysis was based on the national legal framework, legal doctrine, and jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, allowing for the establishment of criteria to evaluate the sufficiency and correctness of the reasoning. It concludes that reasoning cannot be understood as a procedural formality, but rather as a substantive element that legitimizes the jurisdictional decision, strengthens legal certainty, and consolidates the rule of law. The study proposes recommendations aimed at improving the argumentative quality of judicial decisions and reinforcing the role of the justice system as a guarantor of institutional transparency.