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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the quality of the reasoning provided in first-instance judgments in Ecuador, using criminal case No. 11282-2024-XXXXX involving the illicit trafficking of substances as a case study. The primary objective is to evaluate whether the judicial reasoning meets the standards of logic, sufficiency, and clarity required by the Constitution and the Constitutional Court, particularly in decisions that restrict fundamental rights. The study focuses on the denial of the conditional suspension of the sentence, analyzing how the judge justifies the failure to meet legal requirements, specifically the defendant's status as a repeat offender. Employing a qualitative approach and an analytical method, the study examines whether the existence of a prior criminal record was duly substantiated as a decisive factor in denying this sentencing benefit. The findings aim to demonstrate that transparency in establishing repeat-offender status is essential to avoid arbitrariness, ensuring that the criminal sanction results from rigorous legal analysis rather than the automatic application of the law.