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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the reasoning provided in judgments issued by first-instance judges in Ecuador. The methodology employs a qualitative, documentary, and jurisprudential analysis, grounded in the standards established by the Constitutional Court and the American Convention on Human Rights. This analysis posits that "sufficient reasoning" comprising a mandatory structure of factual and legal foundations is essential for ensuring both the quality of a judgment and substantive justice. The study examines deficiencies in judicial reasoning as identified in case law: total absence, insufficiency, and merely apparent reasoning. Such flaws manifesting as incoherence, lack of relevance, incongruity, or incomprehensibility along with defective factual or legal argumentation, can violate the right to effective judicial protection and lead to the annulment of the judgment under review. The conclusions indicate that the specific ruling in question strictly adheres to constitutional standards for correct and sufficient reasoning, and that the parties reached a voluntary agreement through a conciliation record during the preliminary hearing. Recommendations include substantiating the defense against any challenge by applying the Constitutional Court s established tests, and ensuring that any conciliation agreement does not infringe upon non-waivable rights.