Introduction: The research focuses on the problem of the reasonable term in cases of non-executed judgments, specifically in the context of caducidad. It addresses the conflict arising between two criteria issued by the highest Ecuadorian courts: the Plenary of the National Court of Justice and the Plenary of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. This conflict is illustrated in Ruling No. 02-2023, issued on January 05, 2023 by the National Court of Justice, and Resolution No. 112-14-JH, dated July 21, 2021, issued by the Plenary of the Constitutional Court. Although jurisdictional decisions related to caducidad are presented, the focus is not on the legality, arbitrariness or legitimacy of the circumstances that led to the pronouncement on the precautionary measure of preventive detention, but on the constitutional reasoning more in line with constitutional and conventional rights. Objective: The objective of the research is to analyze the different positions adopted by the National Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court of Ecuador with respect to the reasonable term and expiration in cases of non-executed sentences. The aim is to determine which of the two approaches is better adjusted to the constitutional and conventional principles of protection of rights.  Methodology: The methodology used in this research consisted of an exhaustive analysis of the rulings and resolutions issued by the National Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court of Ecuador related to the issue of reasonable time and forfeiture. A detailed review of the legal grounds used in each case was carried out, as well as a comparative analysis of the positions adopted by both institutions.  Results: The results of the research reveal that there is a conflict of interpretation between the National Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court of Ecuador regarding reasonable time and caducidad in cases of non-executed sentences. While the National Court adopts a more legalistic and restrictive approach in the application of the law, the Constitutional Court leans towards a more constitutionalist interpretation, prioritizing the protection of fundamental rights. Conclusion: In conclusion, the research shows the need to harmonize the interpretations of the National Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court of Ecuador in relation to the reasonable term and the expiration of time in cases of non-executed sentences. It is essential to find a balance between legal and constitutional aspects in order to guarantee adequate protection of the rights of persons involved in judicial proceeding.  

Introduction: the right to freedom of movement may be restricted by means of an oral resolution that grants the precautionary measure of preventive detention. Pretrial detention is based on constitutional and legal provisions, and the oral resolution must justify compliance with these standards, in accordance with the guarantee of motivation. Habeas corpus exercises constitutional control over the oral resolution of pretrial detention and evaluates that it has been granted in accordance with the provisions of the legal system. Objectives: the guiding criterion of the guarantee of motivation makes it possible to evaluate the sufficiency of a judicial decision, and failure to comply with the criterion in the decision implies the existence of one of the deficits of motivation: Nonexistence, insufficiency, and appearance. Methodology: the methodology used the qualitative research model, and recourse was made to publications, research repositories, jurisprudence, and habeas corpus rulings. Relevant material was identified and selected for processing. Results: the results pointed to the admissibility of habeas corpus against oral resolutions that grant preventive detention that have some of the deficiencies of motivation due to non-compliance with the guiding criterion of the guarantee of motivation. Conclusions: habeas corpus is admissible when the oral decision granting preventive detention does not comply with the guiding criterion of the guarantee of motivation, due to non-compliance with a constitutional parameter of mandatory compliance.

Introduction: This academic article examines the development and relevance of mediation in Ecuador, highlighting its transformation since the Mediation and Arbitration Law of 1997. The distinction that exists between mediation and transaction is highlighted, focusing on Ecuadorian legislation that recognizes the transaction as a contract to resolve those extrajudicial disputes. The experience of mediation in Mexico and Spain is compared, highlighting the characteristics and regulations that are specific to each country. It concludes by highlighting profiles of similar mediators in Mexico and Spain, highlighting mediation as a valuable tool for the peaceful and efficient resolution of conflicts that arise in the Ecuadorian and international context. This comprehensive approach provides a panoramic view of mediation, highlighting its contribution to building an accessible justice system in Ecuador. Objectives: analyze mediation in Ecuador, challenges and opportunities for conflict resolution through descriptive research. Methodology: it is carried out through the use of a qualitative and descriptive methodology. Results: the results of this research are reflected when applying the win-win formula, since the parties who attend this mediation process reestablish their ties in an agile and less cumbersome way. Conclusions: mediation provides empowerment to the parties to resolve the conflict; as it is self-composing, it is governed by the will of the parties to reach an agreement and be able to resolve it.