Conflicts of jurisdiction between indigenous justice and ordinary criminal justice: an evaluation of the ecuadorian legal framework

Abstract

The Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador recognizes the coexistence of indigenous and ordinary criminal justice systems as an expression of the legal pluralism of a plurinational state. However, in practice, jurisdictional conflicts have arisen due to a lack of clear normative criteria, generating divergent interpretations and jurisdictional overlap that affect legal certainty. The objective of this study was to analyze jurisdictional conflicts between indigenous and ordinary criminal justice systems in Ecuador by examining the constitutional framework, specialized legal scholarship, and jurisprudence issued by the Constitutional Court, in order to identify the normative and argumentative foundations that influence the determination of competent jurisdiction. The research adopted a qualitative, legal-doctrinal, and interpretive approach. The analysis was based on the hermeneutical interpretation of constitutional norms, judicial decisions, and community practices, complemented by a systematic review of selected academic literature using the PRISMA method. The findings revealed that the lack of specific legislative development of Article 171 of the Constitution, coupled with the limited intercultural training of judicial officers, has contributed to the persistence of interjurisdictional conflicts, generating risks such as double jeopardy and the delegitimization of community decisions adopted in accordance with customary law. The study concluded that it is necessary to strengthen interjurisdictional coordination mechanisms from an intercultural perspective to guarantee the effective implementation of legal pluralism and the coherence of the Ecuadorian justice system.