Interpretativism usually conceives the Constitution as a set of open clauses, which for it to be effective it must be completed by judicial interpretation. Thus, interpretative judicial review entails not so much an interpretation of the Constitution as a constitutional amendment. This brings about, as a result, partisan politicization of constitutional interpretation and a displacement of public discussion and political decision-making from the representative institutions of the State to the judiciary. In opposition to this paradigm I would like to argue that the Constitution is a political decision that claims to be authoritative and hence constraints the range of its possible interpretations. In order to drive my point home I will dwell on some issues raised by the imprescriptibility of crimes against humanity.