...the State has the obligation to use all the legal means at its disposal to combat that situation, since impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations, and total defenselessness of victims and their next of kin.63 Thus, the State that leaves human rights violations unpunished is also failing to comply with its obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights to all persons subject to its jurisdiction64. 102. Consequently, the State has the obligation to investigate the facts that affected José Carlos Trujillo Oroza and his next of kin and that were at the origin of the violations of the American Convention in the instant case, identify those responsible and punish them, and adopt those provisions under domestic law that may be necessary to ensure compliance with this obligation (Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention and Article I of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons). 103. The Court observes that in the instant case, four factors have been the principal obstacles to the effective investigation of the facts that affected José Carlos Trujillo Oroza and the punishment of those responsible; these are: a) the passage of time; b) the absence of the definition of forced disappearance as an offense; c) the application of the statute of limitations in the criminal proceeding, and d) the irregularities committed in processing the criminal proceeding. 104. When examining the facts of this case, it can be seen that Bolivia conducted several pertinent judicial proceedings, as of 1999; these include: a) on March 27, 2000, the Capital’s Fifth Criminal Trial Court, Santa Cruz, Bolivia, issued the order to investigate the alleged crime, opening preliminary proceedings against Elías Moreno Caballero, Antonio Guillermo Elio Rivero, Justo Sarmiento Alanés and Pedro Percy González Monasterio, for allegedly committing the crimes of deprivation of freedom, ill-treatment and torture. The judge expanded these preliminary proceedings by an indictment of April 18, 2000, against Ernesto Morant Lijeron, Oscar Menacho and Rafael Loayza, for allegedly committing the same crimes; and b) on November 10, 2000, the Capital’s Fifth Criminal Trial Court, Santa Cruz, Bolivia, issued a decision in which it admitted the “prior matter of the statute of limitations and the death of the accused” filed by five of the accused, and ordered that the case should be closed in their favor. In a decision of January 12, 2001, the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Santa Cruz confirmed this decision of the Capital’s Fifth Criminal Trial Court, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. 105. In the paragraphs setting forth the legal grounds on which the decision of November 20, 2000, was based, the Fifth Judge considered that: 63 Paniagua Morales et al. case, supra note 62, para. 173. Similarly, cf. Cantoral Benavides case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 69; Cesti Hurtado case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 63; and The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 3, para. 100. 64 cf. Cantoral Benavides case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 69; The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 3, para. 99; and The “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 4, para. 199.