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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the quality of the reasoning in judgments issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador, regarding it as an essential guarantee of due process and legal certainty under Articles 76 and 82 of the Constitution. Using an analytical method, the study examines Case No. 01904-2017-XXXXX a constitutional protection action (*acción de protección*) in which the rights to work and property were violated through the application of repealed legal provisions. The study distinguishes between "sufficient reasoning" which enables the exercise of the right to a defense and "correct reasoning," which aligns with applicable law. The findings demonstrate that, although the analyzed judgment meets the minimum formal requirements of reasonableness and coherence, it exhibits partial deficiencies regarding the depth of doctrinal analysis and the assessment of evidence. While the ruling is valid and does not require annulment, the study underscores the need to strengthen argumentative rigor to prevent arbitrariness and ensure the effective protection of fundamental rights.