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

Abstract

Abstract: This study analyzes the adequacy and correctness of the reasoning in a judgment issued by a trial-level judge in Ecuador within an anonymized criminal case (Case No. XXXXX-XXXX-XXXXX) involving unauthorized firearms, ammunition, and explosives handled via an abbreviated procedure. The research employed the analytical method and the "EL SER" method, enabling an examination of the judicial decision through close reading, content mapping, and an assessment of its argumentative structure. This involved reviewing the legal basis, the factual basis, the *ratio decidendi*, the *obiter dicta*, and the final ruling, alongside the application of questionnaires designed to evaluate the standard of sufficient reasoning and the correctness of the reasoning. The results demonstrate that the judgment does not suffer from a lack of reasoning, insufficient reasoning, or merely apparent reasoning, nor does it require annulment or correction on appeal; furthermore, the study provides a legal assessment of the argumentative quality of trial-level judgments and their relationship to due process.