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

Abstract

Abstract:This research study analyzed the constitutional guarantee of reasoning that must be taken into account in first-instance judgments in Ecuador, within the legal standards established in Constitutional Court Decision No. 1158-17-EP/21. The research identifies decisions that, under the guise of legality, exhibit flaws in logic and factual sufficiency. Using a qualitative methodology, Caso No. 11282-2025-0XXXX was analyzed, in which deficiencies in appearance and insufficiency were observed. The results reveal factual insufficiency due to the omission of a technical reconstruction of the sequence of events, and a flaw in appearance due to logical inconsistency. This becomes evident when it is assumed that the conduct classified as excessive self-defense is based solely on the asymmetry of the harmful outcome, without considering an análisis of the rationality and necessity of the means employed. It is concluded that these deficiencies violate the right to due process and to effective judicial protection, and it is recommended that judicial training in the area of evidentiary assessment be strengthened to prevent arbitrariness in the administration of justice.