This study investigates the approach adopted by Tunisian policymakers after the 2011 revolution regarding transitional justice (TJ). It uses the justice-balance approach, suggested by Olsen, Payne, & Reiter (2010) to be the most effective approach to reduce human rights violations and boost democracy, as a benchmark model both on the de jure and de facto levels. After explaining this benchmark and building the Tunisian TJ index, I find a significant gap between the constitutional texts produced to govern TJ after the revolution and the policies generated to apply them. However, both of them are mostly compatible with the justice-balance approach, as they both adopt a mix of trials and amnesty tools, combined with truth-revealing mechanisms. Still, nearly all the adopted mechanisms, except for national consultations, suffered either from a partial or non-transparent application. This approach raises concerns around the de jure/de facto constitutional gap in Tunisia after the revolution.