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

Abstract

Abstract: This study analyzes the reasoning behind a trial-level judgment regarding a constitutional protection action concerning the violation of a newborn's rights due to the failure to perform a vision screening. The general objective was to evaluate the ruling's argumentative quality using an analytical method and the standard of motivational sufficiency. The methodology utilized a sufficiency standard questionnaire and a correct reasoning questionnaire as instruments, applied to a relevant sample of constitutional law cases. The results obtained after identifying interpretive and evidentiary issues reveal a deficiency in reasoning characterized by incoherence; the judge attributed institutional liability to the hospital without substantiating the causal link regarding the individual conduct of the professionals involved. This deficiency suggests that the judgment is subject to correction on appeal, as it fails to meet the constitutional standard for judicial reasoning.