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

Abstract

Abstract: This study analyzes how trial-level judges in Ecuador provide the reasoning for their judgments that is, how they justify their rulings while guaranteeing the right to a defense and avoiding decisions that fail to align with the principles enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador. To this end, a criminal judgment from case No. 13281-2024-XXXXX, concerning the crime of intimidation, was selected for analysis. The study examines in detail how the judge considers the alleged facts and frames the legal issue at hand, as well as the arguments and the assessment of evidence that led to the ruling. These elements are evaluated based on standards of coherence and legal substantiation. These standards relate to the study's theoretical framework, which explains judicial reasoning by identifying two key levels: "sufficient reasoning" which requires the decision to be comprehensible and "correct reasoning" which demands a logical connection between the law and the facts. The study also analyzes common errors that can compromise the quality of a judgment. The ultimate goal is to determine whether the judgment meets basic criteria for reasoning regarding its comprehensibility and logical structure. Ultimately, ensuring that judgments are duly reasoned strengthens judicial rulings and guarantees that the parties can exercise their rights to effective judicial protection and a defense.