Why do some states pursue transitional justice (TJ) in the immediate aftermath of armed conflict while others do not? What drives a state to select a particular type of justice mechanism over another? We argue that post conflict justice (PCJ) decisions are driven by the interests and power of political elites shaped by recently ended conflicts. Our analysis shows that conflict outcomes and their subsequent impact on the balance of power between the government and rebel groups are the most important determinants of post conflict justice (PCJ) decisions. Domestic trials are most likely after a decisive, one-sided victory while truth commissions and reparations are most likely after a negotiated settlement. We also find that conflict severity interacts with conflict outcomes to affect post conflict justice decisions.