Formulation of Plithogenic Hypotheses to Evaluate the Viability of the Right of Recourse in Ecuador

Abstract

The purpose of the research is to assess the viability of the right of recourse in Ecuador by creating neutrosophic plithogenic hypotheses with respect to uncertain results and conflicting trends in determining public officials' liability for their patrimony in order to publicly establish a reliable assessment of an objective relative to improving recourse of public assets for injuries caused by dolus and culpa gravis. The investigation is descriptive, founded upon neutrosophic plithogenic philosophy which allows for hypothesis generation with truths, falsities, and uncertainties. Through an analysis of national court cases which determine the viability of recourse for the years 2008-2018 in Ecuador and patterns of prediction in Argentina and Chile, all qualitative findings, as well as neutrosophic mathematics techniques relative to uncertainty, are assessed in a quantitative manner. Ultimately, the researchers conclude that the right of recourse is inviable to an extent but for reasons not associated with establishing state accountability; rather, the uncertainty with dolus determination and the frequency of statutes of limitations are to blame. 70% of cases go unresolved due to uncertainty. Thus, through the neutrosophic plithogenic hypotheses generated, the right of recourse is viable to a certain extent but with limitations, setting implications for more precise legality and judicial training to foster the recourse and state accountability and restitution efforts in Ecuador.

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15642218