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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the requirement for reasoned justification in judgments issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador, using Case No. 18332-2023-01084 concerning a possessory action for recovery of possession as a case study. The primary objective is to evaluate whether the ruling meets the standards of sufficiency and proper reasoning established by the Constitutional Court in Judgment No. 1158-17-EP/21. Through an analytical method and the use of specialized questionnaires, the judge's argumentative structure was examined to identify potential deficiencies, such as a total lack of reasoning, insufficient reasoning, or merely apparent reasoning. The results indicate that the analyzed judgment possesses substantial factual and legal robustness, prioritizing substantive justice and the protection of vulnerable groups. The study concludes that, although the proceedings were subsequently annulled due to defects in the initial complaint, the trial judge's reasoning regarding actual possession constituted a valid argumentative exercise consistent with the constitutional state of rights.