Cesar Percy Estrada-Ayre, Syntia Porras-Sarmiento, Luis Alberto Poma-Lagos, Luis Alfredo CalderónVillegas, Jhonatan Erikson Mendoza-Castellanos, Eyer Moises Quispe-Menendes, Pierre Moises VivancoNuñez, Hector Arturo Vivanco-Vasquez, Ángel Alberto Chávez-Rodríguez, Isaac Wilmer Montero-Yaranga, Castellanos
ABSTRACT
The present quantitative research explores the connection between judicial motivation and safeguarding the fundamental rights with references to 30 legal professionals in the city of Huancayo in Peru and the relation to their perceptions. This paper finds out the possibility of the role of apparent motivation (the superficial reasoning) and the absence of internal reasoning in the judicial decisions as a cause of legal disprotection. Data (using a structured survey) demonstrates that, 80 percent of the respondents consider the state less effective in protecting fundamental rights using legal measures, and 90 percent concur with the idea that motivation on the part of the judiciary is the key in providing legal protection. Statistical tests of the data, such as those obtained by using the Chi-Square Tests, Z-Scores (1.2 for Yes), Cohen d (0.92), and Odds Ratios (11.94 of Yes), showed that the observed distribution greatly differs in comparison to an expected uniform distribution exemplifying the extreme weighing of the answers in favor to Yes. Her findings indicate a key role of clear and complete judicial reasoning in protecting basic rights, thereby indicating that changes are needed in the way judicial decision making is performed to provide greater consistency and success in such judicial protections. The examination offers highly useful evidence to enhance the judicial accountability and better use of legal safeguards of basic rights.
