La racionalidad en la legítima defensa : hacia una interpretación pro víctima en Ecuador.

Abstract

This research analyzes self-defense in Ecuador and the ambiguity in the application of Article 33 of the COIP, which requires the concurrence of unlawful aggression, rational necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The study identifies that judges often confuse proportionality with rationality, applying restrictive criteria that limit the right of defense and undermine victims’ protection. Historical background, doctrine, comparative legislation (Colombia, Spain, Chile, and the U.S.–Texas), and national cases are examined, showing contradictory interpretations: while some courts adopt a restrictive view based on proportionality, the National Court of Justice recognizes rationality as the true legal limit. The research concludes that the absence of clear rules undermines legal certainty and forces victims to resort to higher courts to have their rights recognized. Finally, it proposes a reform of Article 33 COIP, expanding its wording to clarify when self-defense applies and when it does not, thereby privileging a pro-victim interpretation that effectively guarantees the right to life and defense.