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

Abstract

Abstract: This thesis analyzes judicial reasoning as an essential guarantee of the rule of law and a fundamental component of due process. It examines the role of such reasoning in ensuring the rationality, coherence, and legitimacy of judicial decisions, as well as its significance for effective judicial protection and the right to a defense. The research addresses the distinction between sufficient reasoning and correct reasoning, highlighting that the former ensures formal compliance with the duty to provide grounds for a decision, whereas the latter guarantees the judgment's substantive validity and legal coherence. Furthermore, the study identifies deficiencies and flaws in reasoning such as absence, insufficiency, apparent coherence, and inconsistency and their consequences, including the nullity of rulings, the infringement of fundamental rights, and the loss of institutional legitimacy. Finally, it examines legal challenges as mechanisms for reviewing and correcting poorly reasoned judgments, reaffirming the importance of transparency and accountability in the exercise of judicial functions.