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

Abstract

Abstract: This study focused on the analysis of judicial reasoning as an essential element for the validity of rulings, covering the requirements for sufficient reasoning, the types of deficiencies, and the flaws that can affect validity. It outlined the criteria for proper and sufficient reasoning viewed as a guarantee of coherence, transparency, and legitimacy as well as the mechanisms for challenging and correcting judgments. These include vertical appeals (such as the appeal for review, the appeal in cassation, and the appeal against a refusal to admit an appeal) and horizontal remedies (such as requests for clarification and supplementation), all designed to oversee and improve the exercise of judicial authority. Additionally, the study examined the liabilities and consequences associated with poorly reasoned judgments, including violations of due process and the nullity of the ruling. Upon reviewing the specific judgment in question, I observed that it meets the standards for proper reasoning and is free from flaws or rights violations; all relevant parameters were respected, thereby upholding the guarantee of due process.