This last one supposes that the Court must abstain to take part fixing preceding on subjects that are rather controversial and where the valuing positions can divide to the public opinion. This implies, on the other hand, a prudent practice that allows the Court to obtain the greater possible consensus in the use of this new tool, which will allow a true one him normative power, as it has been said already. The necessary distinction between judicial precedent and preceding constitutionalist: In Sentencia of date 14 of November of the 2005 materialized in the N File 3741-2004-AA/TC, the Constitutional Court has considered who, in order that a decision hers, raised in the form of binding precedent can become a useful tool in the expansion of the effects of a sentence that, in principle, must only have Inter effects parts, is necessary to establish the distinction between the effects of the binding precedent emitted by a Constitutional Court, and what they are the effects of the judicial precedent in the systems of the Common Law. He is known that the judicial precedent in the system of the Common Law has been developed like binding precedent in vertical sense; that is to say, applicable from the Supreme Court (for the North American case) towards you cut and judged inferiors of all the judicial system. Osseous, the binding effect settles down here basically with respect to the judges.
Whatever it invokes a precedent, so that this one obtains his effects, will have to go before a judge, who will have to apply it in a tactical mission. For associated saying, the constitutional precedent in our system has more general effects. In its own description: the form since the tradition of the constitutional courts in the system of the continental right has consolidated has established, from very early, the effect on all the powers public of the sentences of the Constitutional Court. Hyundai takes a slightly different approach.