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

Abstract

Abstract: This thesis analyzes the reasoning provided in judgments issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador, highlighting its importance as a guarantee of due process and effective judicial protection. Judicial reasoning is a constitutional requirement mandating that judges base their decisions on legal norms and a proper assessment of the facts, thereby enabling the parties to understand the grounds for the ruling. The research examines a judgment concerning a declaration of a *post-mortem* de facto union to determine whether it meets the standards for sufficient and correct reasoning established in legal doctrine and legislation. An analytical methodology was employed for the study, allowing the judgment to be broken down into its essential elements such as the facts, legal issues, evidence, and the judge's reasoning. The results show that, while the judgment meets the minimum requirements for reasoning, it exhibits deficiencies in the quality of its argumentation, particularly regarding the assessment of evidence and the logical connection between legal norms and the facts. The study concludes that, although there is no total absence of reasoning that would warrant declaring the judgment void, there are flaws that justify a review through an appeal, underscoring the need to strengthen judicial argumentation in the country.