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

Abstract

Abstract:This thesis analyzes the reasoning provided in judgments issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador, focusing on verifying its sufficiency and correctness in accordance with constitutional due process standards. The research stems from the importance of judicial reasoning as a fundamental guarantee for ensuring transparency, effective judicial protection, and the oversight of jurisdictional decisions within a constitutional state based on rights and justice. The study employed a qualitative approach and an analytical method, allowing for the breakdown of a judicial ruling into its essential elements: facts, legal norms, evidence, and the decision itself. The argumentative quality of the selected ruling was evaluated using methodological tools, specifically a "sufficiency standard" questionnaire and a "correct reasoning" questionnaire. The results indicate that the ruling provides sufficient reasoning regarding the primary claim; however, it exhibits partial deficiencies due to "omissive inconsistency," as it fails to address all the claims raised. The study concludes that judicial reasoning should not be limited to justifying the central outcome.