The present article looks at the basic components of the structure of the argument justifying the application of constitutional precedent Colombia, through the reconstruction of Constitutional Court decision T292, 2006, which is a key ruling on the issue. It begins by placing the question in context and looking at its current state, in addition to providing a brief description of Colombia’s constitutional system and the use of judicial precedent within it. After that, the classical notions and the current ones on the binding nature of decisions on constitutionality are presented. However, although the emphasis is on abstract constitutional control, several clarifications are provided on rulings that resolve writs for the protection of fundamental rights. Concepts and features that are crucial to the purpose of this article are summarized as well, such as the workings of vertical and horizontal precedent, and the change in the line of decision, all within the framework of Colombian constitutional jurisprudence. In the end, several considerations are put forth on the implications of the mandatory nature of constitutional precedent and the role of judges in that respect, considering the definition of the crime of breach of trust by disregard for precedent, as referred to in ruling C335/ 2008.