This article offers a critical analysis of the jurisprudence developed by the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Chile in relation to the duty to consult with aboriginal groups enshrined in the International Labour Organization’s Convention 169. In the case of the Constitutional Court, the author notes that there exist certain flaws where the Court has referred to the nature and scope of aboriginal consultation, which has been defined below international standards, basically as a simple procedure to gather opinions. In the case of the Supreme Court, this article presents the relevant decisions of the highest Chilean Court, which has interpreted the duty to consult in a very different manner. On certain occasions, the tribunal has assimilated this duty to general mechanisms of citizen participation, and on others, it has recognized its autonomous nature in a manner closer to international standards.