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

Abstract

Abstract: This research examines an Ecuadorian criminal judgment to determine whether the judge's reasoning meets the constitutional and doctrinal standards required for due process. The study employs Manuel Atienza s theory of legal argumentation and Luigi Ferrajoli s *garantista* (rights-protective) approach as a theoretical framework, enabling an examination of the judicial decision's rationality and legitimacy. The "EL SER" method was applied to the study, allowing for the identification of relevant facts, the legal norms invoked, and the manner in which the judge constructed the reasoning behind the decision. Furthermore, the research evaluates potential deficiencies in the reasoning such as insufficiency and superficiality particularly regarding the evidentiary analysis within the abbreviated procedure applied in this case. The analysis reveals that the judgment contains sufficient legal grounds to support the decision reached. However, certain limitations were identified regarding the explanation of the evidence; this aspect could be elaborated upon in greater detail to provide a more comprehensive justification.