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

Abstract

Abstract: This study analyzes the reasoning behind decisions issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador, viewing such reasoning as an essential constitutional guarantee for ensuring transparency, oversight, and an effective defense. Based on a review of legal doctrine and case law including relevant rulings by the Constitutional Court the study identifies the minimum elements required for a reasoned decision: citation of legal norms, evidentiary assessment, argumentative coherence, and reasonableness. The work distinguishes between absent, insufficient, and merely apparent reasoning, as well as the primary flaws affecting validity, such as incoherence, irrelevance, incongruity, and incomprehensibility. Furthermore, it examines the procedural consequences of defective reasoning, including nullity, the reopening of proceedings, and the issuance of new decisions. The research provides a theoretical and practical framework for understanding how reasoned decision-making strengthens due process and defines the scope of constitutional review, without usurping the role of the trial judge. This analysis contributes to improving the quality of legal arguments in judicial decisions and promoting clearer, more accessible standards of justice.