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

Abstract

Abstract: This study analyzes judicial reasoning and discrimination based on gender stereotypes through an examination of Judgment 751-15-EP/21 issued by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. The case arose when a female lawyer was denied entry to the Turi Social Rehabilitation Center (CRS Turi) due to her attire. A qualitative, document-based approach is employed, involving a review of legal norms and case law, alongside the application of criteria regarding the sufficiency and correctness of legal arguments. The analysis distinguishes the challenged provincial ruling from the constitutional resolution that overturned it and examined the merits of the *acción de protección* (constitutional protection action). Omissions are identified in the judicial response to relevant arguments and in the examination of rights violations. The study also examines the ordered remedies, including public apologies, regulatory adjustments, and training. The results link the duty to provide legal reasoning with the principle of equality and offer insights for legal education and the advancement of SDG 5, without generalizing the findings to all judicial bodies or attributing causality regarding judicial training to this study.