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

Abstract

Abstract: This thesis analyzes the reasoning provided in judgments issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador, focusing on the adequacy and correctness of such reasoning as a guarantee of due process. The research establishes the theoretical framework for judicial reasoning, highlighting its constitutional basis and its relationship with the right to a defense, legal certainty, and transparency. It examines Judgment No. 15951-2024-XXXXX, concerning an action for access to public information filed against the Municipal Government of Tena, in which a tacit refusal was evidenced by the failure to respond within the statutory timeframe. The analysis identifies the structural elements of judicial argumentation, distinguishing between adequate and correct reasoning, as well as the defects that can compromise their validity. It is determined that a lack of adequate reasoning violates fundamental rights and may result in the nullity of the decision. In conclusion, the study emphasizes the importance of clear, logical, and coherent argumentation not merely as a formal requirement, but as an essential element for ensuring fair decisions, strengthening confidence in the judicial system, and fostering a genuine culture of transparency and legality.