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

Abstract

Abstract: This thesis analyzes the reasoning behind a first-instance traffic-related judgment issued in Ecuador in the case concerning the charge of wrongful death (Art. 377 of the Comprehensive Organic Penal Code COIP) against the defendant A.S.A.D. Using the "Puzzle Project" methodology, the study applies the standard of motivational sufficiency and the "correct reasoning" questionnaire, adhering to the parameters established in Judgment No. 1158-17-EP/21 of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. The analysis determines that while the judgment meets the minimum threshold for motivational sufficiency featuring complete legal and factual grounds it suffers from a serious legal inconsistency regarding the decision itself: the judge expressly acknowledges the existence of reasonable doubt in the defendant's favor (pursuant to Art. 5, numeral 3 of the COIP) yet proceeds to convict him, thereby contradicting the mandatory requirement of that provision. The judgment became final without being challenged, resulting in irreversible consequences. The study concludes that the guarantee of reasoned judgment is not merely a formal requirement but the primary tool for protecting fundamental rights within criminal proceedings.