This chapter examines the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ practice with respect to consensus interpretation. Contrasted with the well-settled practice of the European Court of Human Rights, one can see that the Inter-American Court’s practice seems to rely on consensus when it supports a progressive, teleological interpretation of human rights, rather than being primarily a legitimacy-building device. The chapter argues that the Inter-American Court’s selective engagement eliminates the latter possibilities of the consensus method of interpretation. Instead, the Court’s seeking legitimacy not from State parties, but other stakeholders, does not seem particularly concerned with legitimacy costs (even if it probably should).