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

Abstract

Abstract:This research examines the reasoning provided in judgments issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador, focusing on a constitutional protection action (*acción de protección*) filed against a public entity, the National Telecommunications Corporation (CNT). The ultimate objective is to determine whether these decisions meet the standards for sufficient and correct legal reasoning established by the Constitutional Court. To this end, a qualitative approach and an analytical method were employed, utilizing tools such as the "EL SER" method to analyze and deconstruct the judgment, alongside evaluation questionnaires based on current constitutional doctrine. The results demonstrate that the decision under review meets the standard for sufficient reasoning as it includes both legal and factual grounds yet it also exhibits limitations in its reasoning, particularly regarding the justification for financial reparations. The study concludes that reasoned decision-making is essential to guaranteeing due process, preventing arbitrary rulings, and enhancing the quality of justice, thereby providing useful criteria for analyzing judicial decisions in Ecuador and ensuring their correct application within the context of actual constitutional litigation.