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

Abstract

Abstract: The following study examines the legal basis for first-instance convictions in Ecuador, using as an example the conviction by the Criminal Guarantees Court of Pichincha for femicide. The study analyzes the constitutional guarantees of reasoned judgments provided for in Article 76.7.l of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, distinguishing between sufficient and adequate reasoning, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court. Using the judgment analysis method, the judicial decision that convicted NN of aggravated femicide was evaluated, applying the standards of sufficient and adequate reasoning through questionnaires. The results indicate that the judgment meets the minimum standard of sufficient reasoning, as it possesses an argumentative structure that demonstrates factual and legal justification without incurring defects of non-existence, insufficiency, or apparent lack thereof, nor flaws of incoherence, irrelevance, incongruity, or incomprehensibility. The judgment complies with the constitutional parameter of reasoning, although there are legal correctness issues that may be reviewed through the vertical appeal process, reaffirming the difference between constitutional review and ordinary legality review regarding judicial reasoning.