The author served as an advisor on human rights and also helped develop criteria for the prosecution of human rights violators for President Alfonsin of Argentina. Their main task was to develop criteria for adjudicating responsibility for human rights violations. This paper addresses the problems which arise concerning the establishment of the degree of responsibility. This was extremely problematic because some participation in human rights violations, even if only through acquiescence by failure to act, was universal within the military. It was decided to try only those officers who were principally responsible for human rights violations and to do so in accordance with the ethical values that were entrenched in Argentine criminal law. The idea of bringing the military to trial created vehement arguments within the government. Fear of a military coup caused Alfonsin to draft a law ending future criminal action against the military. The author supported the "full stop" law which set a date after which no indictments could take place. He believes that democratic governments are morally bound to proceed against the military even at the risk of a military rebellion because bringing army officers to trial is an effective step in the protection of individual rights. He argues that not punishing all violations of human rights is not a breach of moral duties by the transitional administration. To protect its citizens, Argentina needs a broad human rights policy that must include military reformation so that it will not turn into a threat again. 31 notes.