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

Abstract

Abstract: This study addresses the issue of "reasoning in judgments issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador." The general objective was to analyze and evaluate whether the reasoning provided in judgments issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador is correct and sufficient. The research was conducted at the Multicompetent Judicial Unit of the Alausí Canton, Chimborazo Province, Ecuador, under the institutional affiliation of the Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja (UTPL). The sample consisted of Judgment No. 06102-2025-00008. Methodologically, a qualitative and critical approach was applied, supported by analytical-synthetic and legal-hermeneutic methods. Regarding techniques and instruments, an active procedural audit was carried out by operationalizing variables contained in the questionnaires regarding the standard of sufficiency (Annex 5) and correct reasoning (Annex 6). The general conclusion determines that there is a structural tendency within the ordinary justice system to use procedural acquiescence and settlement agreements as distractions to evade the obligation to provide independent reasoning; this results in rulings that lack sufficient legal grounding and undermines legal certainty.