This study investigated Colombian adolescents’ reasoning about justice as a function of their disposition to trust their environments. Specifically, we examined (1) how youths’ endorsement of restorative and retributive solutions varied in relation to their levels of trust, (2) how their expectations regarding perpetrators’ behavior played into their reasoning, and (3) the qualitative differences between participants with high and low levels of trust. Seventy-four 14- to 19-year old adolescents evaluated five solutions (apologies, compensation by perpetrators, compensation by the government, punishment, and a balance between compensation and punishment) after being presented with two scenarios depicting group harm, based on events situated in the armed conflict. Participants also completed a 16-item questionnaire assessing their general levels of trust. Overall, higher levels of trust were associated with support for restorative solutions; this association was mediated by beliefs about perpetrators’ honesty and reliability, but only for solutions that balanced restoration and retribution. Relatedly, youths’ judgments about punishment reflected a nuanced understanding of moral transgressions as they occur in complex socio-political climates. Last, qualitative analyses suggested that attributions about perpetrators’ behavior bore on youths’ beliefs about their potential for rehabilitation, thereby informing their reasoning about justice in the aftermath of harm. These findings provide new insights into the ways that adolescents weigh and coordinate concerns with deservingness, accountability, and victims’ wellbeing, as informed by their assumptions about the trustworthiness of their environment. Understanding how these associations unfold in younger generations is critical, as they will carry the burden of future attempts at peacebuilding.