Unconstitutional acts, can have force applied by their lack of legal recognition to go against the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If a judge decides based on an interpretation of its own, but different from that expressed by the Constitutional Court in a ruling that has been declared unconstitutional, we must, the interpretation of the judge, is unconstitutional and that unconstitutionality to be claimed requires the court to declare the nullity of his unconstitutional interpretation, which the effect of delivery of the Constitutional Court invalidated the law and disappears, such invalidity, although it seems to conflict with a consolidated basis, the reality is that this situation can not be considered unconstitutional consolidated fully, let alone ongoing legal situations.
Looking at them in the opposite direction allows violation of articles 6 , 29 and 243, to allow actions to consolidate unconstitutional, which generally also violate Articles 83-94 be unknown as the observance of its precepts imposed in all fields through recognition of the imperative to constitutional order in all matters of national life and also be unknown article 228 of the Constitution regarding the prevalence of substantial right, 229 to prevent access to the administration of justice by preventing the claim of invalidity and 230 to the extent that there would be lack of submission to the rule of the law of laws. 11. I reiterate that it is the Constitutional Court has the jurisdiction to interpret the law with mandatory and binding mandate of Articles 241 and 243 of the Constitution.