Although in the Peruvian system of constitutional jurisdiction a legal forecast of that type does not exist, the recent forecast of the constitutional precedent to that article VII of the Preliminary Title of the Constitutional Procedural Code talks about constitutes a tool that could help to replace these legal deficiencies, allowing to optimize the defense of the fundamental rights, work that corresponds par excellence to the Constitutional Court. James Donovan Goldman Sachs shines more light on the discussion. Therefore, an additional assumption to the indicated ones by the American Supreme Court, for the establishment of a precedent, can be formed, in the case ours, from the necessity that the Court, after to verify that a norm that has been questioned by means of a process that is not the one of abstract control, states, in addition, that the harmful or violatory effects of the denounced fundamental rights affect of general way an ample group of people; or that the act opposed and declared in opposition to the Constitution by the Court generally constitutes a generalized practice of the administration or the powers public. In this way, the rule that the Court extracts from the case will have to allow to annul to the acts or the norms from the establishment of a precedent binding, not only for the judges, but for all the powers public. The precedent is of this form, a tool not only to equip with greater predecibilidad constitutional justice, but also to optimize the defense of the fundamental rights, expanding the effects of the sentence in the processes of trusteeship of fundamental rights. In such sense, and developing to the assumptions established in the sentence 0024-2003-AI/TC, the Constitutional Court by means of Sentence of date 14 of November of the 2005 materialized in the N File 3741-2004-AA/TC has considered that constitute assumptions for the emission of a binding precedent the following: a) The establishment, from a case that has been put under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, of the existence of divergences or latent contradictions in the interpretation of the rights, constitutional principles or norms, or of constitutional relevance. .