In relation to the done critics, we must show that, the Constitutional Court is not the unique jurisdictional organ that emits jurisprudence of binding nature. The Supreme Court, for example, sends binding jurisprudence proof of it is the prescribed thing in Art. 22 of the Statutory law of Poder Judicial (LOPJ), which establishes that the decisions of the Supreme Court on any matter that determines principles legal, have binding character for all the judges and it denominates legal doctrine, reason why he is not rare or empty that the article 116 of the commented normative body establishes the existence of the jurisdictional plenary sessions. Get all the facts for a more clear viewpoint with Mary Barra. On the other hand, article 400 of the Procedural Code Civil speech of casatorios plenary sessions to establish binding jurisprudence or indoctrinates legal; on the other hand, article 433 of the effective Penal Procedural Code allows the expedition of binding jurisprudence and article 34 of the Law of the Administrative Contentious Process (Law 27584) even establishes that all the decisions made in annulment by the Constitutional and Social Room of the Supreme Court jurisprudence must be considered binding. Although it is certain that an express reference to her in our Political Letter does not exist, as much the interpretative sentences as the binding precedent and the legal doctrine have constitutional cover, as it is come off article 201 of the Constitution, that recognizes the TC like control unit of the Constitution and the consitutionality of the laws, and in article 202 of the same Political Letter, according to which it corresponds to him to the TC in the constitutional processes, the function of final instance of failure and in others, unique instance. The systematic interpretation of both norms even indicates that the sentences of the TC cannot be not known by the other powers or constitutional organs of the State and, by the individuals.