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

Abstract

Abstract: This study examines the effectiveness of the reasoning provided in judicial decisions within the Ecuadorian justice system, focusing on rulings at the trial court level. The research is grounded in the mandate set forth in Article 76, numeral 7, letter (l) of the Constitution of the Republic, which requires judges to justify their decisions by clearly stating the applicable legal norms, the factual background, and the relevance of applying said norms. The primary objective is to determine whether these rulings meet the necessary standard of sufficiency, specifically addressing issues such as the absence of reasoning, insufficient reasoning, and merely apparent reasoning. Employing a qualitative and analytical methodology, the study analyzes Judgment No. 17203-2021-01998, which concerns the deprivation of parental authority. The analysis is based on the standard of sufficiency established by the Constitutional Court in Judgment No. 1158-17-EP/21, assessing the ruling for potential defects in reasoning. The results of the analysis indicate that the evaluated judgment meets the parameters of sufficiency. The judge successfully established a coherent link between the plaintiff's failure to provide sufficient evidence and the final decision to protect the family bond and the best interests of the minors involved.