Judicial reasoning standards in Ecuadorian jurisdictional guarantees: an analytical approach to Constitutional Court Ruling 1694-21-EP/24

This study aimed to assess the standards of sufficient reasoning within Ecuador’s jurisdictional guarantees and their effectiveness in protecting fundamental rights. A qualitative-documentary method was used, analyzing Constitutional Court Judgment 1694-21-EP/24 alongside relevant doctrine and comparative jurisprudence in constitutional law. The findings reveal that, while the Constitutional Court has established specific criteria for judicial reasoning, implementation issues persist, especially in lower courts, where judicial reasoning is often insufficient or ambiguous. Additionally, the Court’s interpretive flexibility allows some reasoning elements to remain implicit, which can result in subjective interpretations and inconsistency. Comparative analysis with international systems, such as those in Spain, Chile, and Colombia, highlighted similar challenges and underscored Ecuador’s need for clearer standards to reduce subjectivity. The study concludes that ongoing judicial training and the creation of practical guidelines are crucial to achieving consistency in reasoning standards, thereby strengthening due process rights and enhancing Ecuador’s judicial system.