Why do newly democratized countries choose different paths to transitional justice? More specifically, why did some countries choose more accountability for past human rights violations while others did not? In this paper, we argue that a democracy transformed from a single-party dictatorship would prefer restorative to retributive measures of transitional justice after democratization. A country’s transition to democracy opens a window of implementing transitional justice measures, both retributive and restorative ones, including prosecutions, reparations, memorials, truth-seeking, institutional reform, vetting and dismissals. However, the ruling coalition of outgoing authoritarian regimes will find ways to protect their interests after democratization. As the size of authoritarian leaders’ winning coalition is larger, the interests of elite groups are more entrenched. As a result, it is more difficult for the new democratic government to redress historical wrongdoings via retributive transitional justice measures. Based on this argument, we examine the history of democratization in Taiwan from 1988 to the present, focusing on how a repressive past and human rights abuses have been addressed by using restorative transitional justice measures, such as apology, compensation, and memorialization. Our paper sheds lights on the effect of the authoritarian regime types on the progress of transitional justice in newly democratized countries.