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

Abstract

Abstract: This study examines the reasoning behind judgments issued by judges of first instance in Ecuador, specifically focusing on *Acción de Protección* (Action for Constitutional Protection) No. 09281-2023-XXXXX. The objective was to analyze and evaluate whether the reasoning provided in these judgments was correct and sufficient that is, to determine if the judgment under review adhered to the standards for proper and adequate reasoning established by constitutional regulations and relevant case law. The study employed a qualitative approach, utilizing legal-dogmatic and analytical methods, with the documentary analysis of the judgment in question serving as the primary technique. The findings revealed weaknesses in the judgment's argumentative structure and an insufficient legal and factual basis, as well as an excessively formalistic approach that restricted the substantive examination of the invoked constitutional rights. Deficiencies in the reasoning were highlighted, which impact the right to effective judicial protection, respect for due process, and the guarantee of legal certainty. The study concludes that judicial reasoning is an indispensable requirement for ensuring the legitimacy of jurisdictional rulings and guaranteeing their validity.