Finding ways that contribute to quality peace is fundamental: if peace can hold through the fragile post-conflict phase when the risk of relapse into war is at its peak, the hopes for peace gradually improve. In this chapter, the author questions whether truth commissions function generically or are inextricably linked to their specific contexts, and also whether all peace processes benefit from having a truth commission or if there are circumstances when another direction is preferable. The authors argue that a primary difficulty in the process has been to achieve cultural legitimacy for the Truth and Reconcilation Commission (TRC) and to find ways of weaving the foreign-based idea of public truth-telling with traditional reconciliation or community-based conflict resolution. In addition, this legitimacy challenge creates a disjuncture between victims’ expectations and the actual work of the TRC. Bringing in examples from other TRCs around the world, the authors suggest that the “cookie-cutter” approach to TRCs is not the most beneficial. In the majority of cases, a truth commission is created in an attempt to do something to promote post-conflict justice, particularly if the prospect of securing punitive justice against former perpetrators does not look promising. However, without ensuring that the TRC fits the cultural context in dealing with conflict and trauma, the TRC risks being hollowed out from within. Apart from being a costly undertaking during the post-conflict period, the frustration and disillusionment that can result from a poorly executed process may lead to more pitfalls than promises for peace.