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

Abstract

Abstract: The reasoning behind judicial decisions constitutes an essential guarantee of due process and a decisive element for the legitimacy of the justice system. Accordingly, this project aims to analyze the quality of reasoning in judgments issued by trial-level judges, through the study of a criminal case involving identity theft processed via an abbreviated procedure. The research adopted an analytical-legal approach, applying a structured method of argumentative decomposition that allowed for the identification of facts, legal issues and normative questions, the rationale for the decision, and the final ruling. Furthermore, the judgment was evaluated against a standard of sufficiency and a "proper reasoning" questionnaire, aimed at identifying deficiencies such as insufficiency or merely apparent reasoning. The results demonstrated a relevant normative basis, an appropriate application of the facts to the criminal offense, and a coherent assessment of evidence, with no flaws of incoherence or incongruity identified. It is concluded that the judgment complies with constitutional standards regarding judicial reasoning, providing a replicable methodological model for the academic and judicial review of the quality of judicial argumentation.