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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes and evaluates the adequacy of the reasoning provided in judgments issued by trial-level judges within the Ecuadorian legal system. Adopting a critical and analytical approach, the study examines whether the judgment adheres to established legal parameters, whether it offers a proper analysis of both the facts and the applicable legal framework, and whether it presents arguments that are clear and comprehensible to the parties involved. To this end, the study employed a method for schematizing the arguments found in the judgments, along with questionnaires assessing the correctness and sufficiency of the reasoning; it also utilized the Ecuadorian Automated Judicial Processing System (SATJE) to retrieve the specific judgment under study. A specific case was selected for analysis to determine whether the issued judgment met the required reasoning standards when resolving the defendant's legal status. The research employed the analytical-synthetic method, enabling an examination of the selected case alongside various doctrinal and regulatory sources; this was complemented by established research techniques such as reasoning standards to assess compliance or identify deficiencies that might infringe upon the constitutional right to a reasoned decision.