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

Abstract

Abstract: This study examines compliance with constitutional standards regarding sufficient and proper reasoning in decisions issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador. To this end, a qualitative, legal-analytical methodology is applied, based on an examination of a judgment issued by a Criminal Guarantees Court in a fraud case. The main findings indicate that the analyzed ruling aligns with constitutional parameters, as it presents an adequate assessment of the evidence and clearly explains the insufficiency of proof in light of the presumption of innocence and the reasonable doubt standard. Thus, the ruling establishes a logical and coherent connection between the facts, the evidence, and the applicable legal norms. In conclusion, judicial reasoning constitutes an indispensable component of due process; its proper application ensures legitimate rulings, prevents arbitrariness, and effectively protects fundamental rights within the justice system.