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

Abstract

Abstract: This study analyzes the applicability of the requirement for reasoned judicial decisions within a ruling issued by a trial-level judge. The analysis focuses on a judicial decision regarding the termination of a *de facto* union a legal institution recognized in the 2008 Constitution and the Ecuadorian Civil Code. The general objective was to evaluate the adequacy of the reasoning provided in the ruling. The research employed an analytical method, facilitating the breakdown of the judgment into its constituent parts to examine how the legal grounds were established. Techniques and instruments included mapping the arguments within the ruling, as well as using questionnaires regarding the standard of sufficiency and correctness of the reasoning, to determine whether the decision was adequately substantiated. Key findings indicate that the requirement for reasoned decisions is an essential element that fosters a fair process while simultaneously safeguarding the constitutional rights of the parties involved.