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

Abstract

Abstract: This study examines the justification provided in judicial decisions by trial-level magistrates in Ecuador, focusing on criminal judgment No. 13284-2024-04427, issued under the abbreviated procedure. The primary objective was to determine whether the reasoning offered by the judges aligns with the criteria of sufficiency and correctness established by the Constitution, Constitutional Court jurisprudence, and modern legal doctrine. To achieve this, an analytical approach was employed, involving the structuring of judicial arguments, scrutiny of the factual narrative, identification of the *ratio decidendi*, and the application of questionnaires regarding standards of sufficiency and proper reasoning. The findings indicate that the judgment satisfactorily meets the regulatory requirements of the abbreviated procedure, although there is room for improvement regarding the depth of argumentation particularly concerning the evaluation of evidence and the justification of the sentence. This research provides a technical analysis that identifies both strengths and weaknesses in judicial reasoning, thereby contributing to higher-quality legal arguments in the administration of justice, strengthening due process in criminal proceedings, and fostering critical thinking among law students.