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

Abstract

Abstract: This research aims to analyze and evaluate the sufficiency and correctness of judicial reasoning in rulings issued by first-instance judges in Ecuador, focusing on a specific decision concerning the extraordinary acquisitive prescription of ownership. Through the application of an analytical method and a framework for evaluating judicial reasoning, the study examined the ruling s argumentative structure identifying relevant facts, the legal issue at hand, the normative and factual foundations, and the connection between the evidence presented and the decision reached by the judicial authority. The study employed a "sufficiency standard" and a "correct reasoning" questionnaire to assess whether any deficiencies in the judicial reasoning existed. The findings indicate that the analyzed ruling fulfills the constitutional duty to provide reasoning, as it presents clear, coherent, and sufficient legal and evidentiary grounds. Furthermore, no flaws such as a total lack of reasoning, insufficiency, incoherence, inconsistency, irrelevance, or incomprehensibility were identified. Consequently, this research demonstrates that sound legal argumentation strengthens due process, ensures legal certainty, and contributes to the transparency, impartiality, public trust, and legitimacy of the administration of justice in Ecuador, ultimately fostering judicial decisions that are more reasonable, objective, efficient, and consistent with the Constitution.