Motivación en las sentencias emitidas p

Abstract

Abstract:This work analyzes the reasoning behind judgments issued by first-level judges in Ecuador, using criminal case No. 21282-2021-01886 against E.J.O.J. as a case study. The research evaluates the sufficiency and correctness of the judicial reasoning, comparing it with the standards established by the Constitution, the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code, the Constitutional Court, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. It demonstrates that reasoning is a fundamental guarantee of due process, as it legitimizes the exercise of judicial power by requiring reasoned, coherent, and verifiable decisions. The analysis concludes that, although the judgment formally complies with legal requirements, it presents argumentative deficiencies in the evaluation of evidence and in the demonstration of intent, which limits its epistemic correctness. The research proposes strengthening the argumentative training of judges and promoting a deeper, more transparent, and rights-based culture of judicial motivation, ensuring citizen oversight and the democratic legitimacy of judicial decisions in Ecuadorian criminal matters.