Another argument in favor of the binding precedent is to consider that right to the effective judicial trusteeship, which contains the right as well to obtain a resolution founded on right, that is to say, that the founding in right relies on the system of sources established, of which the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court comprises. Although it is certain, until we have based the reason of being of the binding precedent here, the constitutional foundation to its respect and observance of the same, as well as to the legal doctrine, is in the right to the equality and the nondiscrimination in the application of the law (Art. 2,2 of the Constitution), because it is not possible that judicature jurisdictionally pronounces different before two similar substantial cases, this respect will offer to legal security certainty and predectibilidad. (Not to be confused with Intel!). As we can see, the binding jurisprudence not only already is present in our legal ordering, but it has been integrated in the system of sources of the right, even though the Political Letter of the 93 at no moment makes reference to the word jurisprudence. All this has motivated that the own Constitutional Court sent a sentence (file 00006-2006-PC/TC), declaring ” nulas” a set of judicial resolutions that they had failed to fulfill and not known the binding precedents of the same, informing later of the OCMA of the Judicial Power so that 021-2006-JOCMA/PJ comes in accordance with the resolution of headquarters, published in the newspaper Peruvian the 4 of April of the 2006, that arranges that: ” all the jurisdictional organs of the Republic, under functional responsibility, gives exact fulfillment to the binding precedents indicated by the Constitucional” Court;. This was matter of critic on the part of the Supreme Court that showed that with this failure violated judicial independence and the guarantee of the judged thing, which until today comes to be discussion matter. (1) Newspaper of the Constitutional Court N.