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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the reasoning in judgments issued by trial-level judges, based on the study of a criminal case resolved through an abbreviated procedure, with the aim of determining whether the judicial decision meets the standards of sufficient and correct reasoning established by the Constitution and legal doctrine. Using an analytical approach, the study breaks down the judgment's argumentative structure, examining the legal basis, the assessment of the facts, and the coherence between these elements and the decision reached. The results show that, although the judgment meets the minimum reasoning requirements to ensure its validity, it exhibits limitations regarding the depth of reasoning particularly concerning legal interpretation and the analysis of evidence. The study offers a critical reflection on the quality of judicial reasoning in contexts of procedural simplification, highlighting the need to strengthen the judge's role as a guarantor of due process and sound legal argumentation in the administration of justice.