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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes and evaluates the adequacy and correctness of the reasoning in judgments issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador, given that such reasoning constitutes a fundamental guarantee of due process and effective judicial protection. To achieve this objective, the study employed a methodology for analyzing judgment reasoning derived from the analytical method which allows for the breakdown of a judicial decision into its essential elements to examine the quality of its arguments. The study involved selecting a trial-level judgment and conducting a comprehensive review, outlining, and analysis of the facts, legal issues, questions raised, arguments presented, and the decision adopted. Subsequently, the study applied a standard for the sufficiency of reasoning and a questionnaire regarding the correctness of reasoning; these instruments enable the identification of deficiencies such as the absence of reasoning, insufficiency, incoherence, irrelevance, incongruence, or incomprehensibility. The contribution of this research lies in providing objective criteria to evaluate the grounds for judicial decisions and in helping to strengthen the quality, transparency, and legitimacy of the administration of justice in Ecuador.