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

Abstract

Abstract: This study analyzes the reasoning provided in the trial-level judgment issued in case XXXXX-XXXX-XXXXX, within the context of the standards established by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. The general objective was to analyze and evaluate the correctness and sufficiency of the reasoning in judgments issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador, using this specific ruling as a case study. The study employed a judgment analysis methodology based on the analytical method and the "EL SER" method for representing argumentation, alongside the application of two instruments: a questionnaire on the standard of sufficiency of reasoning and a questionnaire on the correctness of reasoning. The results demonstrate that the judgment presents a solid factual basis and a sufficient normative basis; it is free from defects regarding appearance, incoherence, relevance, incongruence, and incomprehensibility, showing only a moderate normative insufficiency in the development of the principle of proportionality. It is concluded that the judgment meets the standard of sufficient reasoning and, above all, aligns with the criteria for correct reasoning, although there is room for improvement regarding the depth and systematic nature of its constitutional argumentation.