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

Abstract

Abstract:This thesis analyzes the reasoning behind a ruling on a *protección* action (a constitutional remedy for the protection of fundamental rights) in case No. 21282-2020-XXXXX, allowing for an evaluation of rights protection within the Ecuadorian digital landscape. The study outlines how the ruling issued by the Lago Agrio Judicial Unit relied on reasoning that was merely apparent and insufficient; the court denied and dismissed a claim regarding a citizen being blocked from a municipality's official Facebook page. The trial judge failed to establish a coherent link between the facts and the law, imposing excessive evidentiary burdens that disregarded the nature of digital public spaces. The analysis identifies flaws such as irrelevance and inconsistency, demonstrating that the lack of a technical factual basis violates due process and the right to a defense. In conclusion, the study determines that the trial court's ruling must be amended through an appeal to prevent judicial reasoning from becoming a mere exercise in empty formalism.