Iura Novit Curia or the Principle of Congruence in criminal proceedings: Which prevails for the Constitutional Court of Ecuador?

Abstract

In criminal proceedings, the tension between the principle of iura novit curia and the principle of congruence presents a significant legal dilemma for the protection of fundamental rights. The former grants the judge the power to apply legal norms even if they have not been invoked by the parties, while the latter requires that decisions be strictly limited to the facts and claims raised during the trial. This duality generates practical conflicts regarding the scope of judicial authority and the respect for procedural guarantees such as the right to defense. This study analyzes the case law of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador between 2021 and January 2025, with the aim of determining which principle has prevailed in recent doctrine. Through a legal-doctrinal and jurisprudential approach, the scope and tensions of both principles are analyzed, the criteria adopted by the Court are systematized, and it is assessed whether there is a consolidated line of jurisprudence. The findings make it possible to identify the balance the Court has sought between the judicial power to interpret and apply the law and the obligation to guarantee decisions that are consistent, transparent, and respectful of due process; while allowing the application of iura novit curia to change the legal classification, provided that it does not result in a denial of defense. Consequently, this analysis contributes to delimiting the scope of judicial power in relation to the right of defense in the Ecuadorian criminal system.