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

Abstract

Abstract: This study analyzes a judgment resulting from a constitutional protection action in which a former Civil Registry employee sought reinstatement, claiming that a colleague in a similar situation had been reinstated; the judge ruled that there had been no violation of rights and that this legal action was not the appropriate remedy, resulting in the dismissal of the case. The general objective of this study is to analyze and evaluate the correctness and sufficiency of the reasoning in judgments issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador. This is achieved through a methodology for analyzing judicial reasoning employing techniques such as outlining and breaking down arguments and by applying specific instruments, namely the "sufficiency of reasoning" standard questionnaire and the "correct reasoning" questionnaire. The study finds that, while the judgment does contain reasoning, it is insufficient; it fails to thoroughly analyze the main argument or fully address the plaintiff's claims, thereby creating a deficit in reasoning that undermines the soundness of the decision.