Análisis de la motivación en sentencias de acción de protección en el cantón Cuenca durante el 2024

Abstract

This study examined the guarantee of motivation in protection actions judgments issued in Cuenca during 2024, within the framework of Ecuador’s constitutional state of rights and justice. It aimed to determine whether the judges of the Provincial Court of Justice of Azuay properly applied the standards of motivational sufficiency set by the Constitutional Court, which require proper normative and factual justification, along with an analysis of rights violations. Methodologically, a mixed approach was employed: both theoretical and empirical. In the theoretical stage, the inductive-deductive method was used, based on a review of doctrine and case law, while in the empirical stage, 97 appeal judgments were analyzed, selected through a probabilistic sample from a total of 258 proceedings. The data were organized and statistically analyzed to identify the argumentative criteria and the adequacy of the judicial reasoning. The results showed that most judgments referenced regulations, but many lacked thorough factual and constitutional analysis. It was also observed that chambers handling the heaviest caseloads provided lower-quality arguments. The research concluded that judicial reasoning remains a structural weakness of the Ecuadorian judicial system. Therefore, it is important to enhance training in constitutional argumentation and improve mechanisms for quality control of judgments.