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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the reasoning provided in judgments issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador, based on a study of executive proceedings to collect on an order promissory note handled by the Civil Judicial Unit of Santo Domingo. The study aims to determine whether the selected judgment adheres to the standards of sufficient and correct reasoning established by the Constitution of the Republic, the case law of the Constitutional Court, and legal doctrine regarding the substantiation of judicial decisions. To address this objective, I adopted an analytical qualitative approach; specifically, I employed the judgment analysis method proposed by Manuel Atienza, complemented by Luigi Ferrajoli s due-process-oriented criteria and two instruments developed for this research: a questionnaire on the standard of sufficiency and another on correct reasoning. The results indicate that, in the case under study, the judicial decision clearly and coherently sets forth the factual and legal grounds supporting the ruling; consequently, it meets the standards for sufficient and correct reasoning, and there are no grounds for annulment due to a lack of adequate reasoning.