La inevitable practical issue facing the time of applying the rules and principles of a legal system is not covered by formal arguments. Definitive and political appraisals are always present, either emphatic or explicitly. However, the formal arguments are considered sufficient to substantiate a large part of the cases that are resolved. On the other hand, this is not objectionable. To accept that a formal argument is sufficient to support a judicial decision, and to prevent the substantive debate from being opened, is a material safeguard to effectively protect the rights of individuals in multiple cases. When the dicussion should be opened and when it is not, it is therefore part of the legal debate itself and of the sphere of exercise of the judiciary. Two cases by way of example, one in Guatemala, the other in Colombia