57 newspaper, the chapter on the proven facts of this Judgment, without the corresponding footnotes, and the operative paragraphs. Said publication shall be made within six months following notice of this Judgment. b) Obligation to investigate the events that resulted in violations in the instant case, and to identify, prosecute and punish the guilty 195. The Court determined that the impunity for the events of the instant case still exists after 15 years of their occurrence. The Court has defined impunity as the overall failure to investigate, arrest, prosecute and convict those responsible for violations of the rights protected under the American Convention.111 The State is obliged to fight said situation by resorting to all available means, as impunity fosters the chronic repetition of human rights violations and renders victims and their relatives completely defenseless.112 196. Furthermore, the next of kin of the victims of serious human rights violations are entitled to know the truth. When this right to know the truth is recognized and exercised in a specific situation, it constitutes a relevant means to provide reparation to the victim and his next of kin, and gives rise to expectations that must be fulfilled by the State. Moreover, knowing the truth makes it easier for the Peruvian community to seek ways to prevent this type of violations in the future.113 In this sense, the Court considers as a preliminary reparation, the efforts made by the CVR to clarify the events of the instant case (supra para. 167). 197. Therefore, the next of kin of the victims are entitled, -and States are obliged-, to have an effective investigation of the events carried out by State authorities, to prosecute the alleged perpetrators of the wrongful acts and, if applicable, to impose the appropriate punishment.114 198. On that matter, upon acknowledging its international liability in the instant case, Peru stated that “the [Peruvian] Office of the Attorney General is not limited by amnesty laws or the statute of limitations to investigate and prosecute those suspected from having committed offenses that violate human rights,” and pointed out that “that applies to the instant case.” Moreover, Peru requested the Court to take into account, upon entering judgment, that “the Peruvian State currently has a regulatory and institutional framework that allows for the investigation and prosecution of the alleged perpetrators of human right violations, including the investigation carried out by the Office of the Attorney General Office for the acts committed in the instant case.” 199. Based on the statements made by the State, this Court considers that, within a reasonable time, the State must seriously adopt any necessary measures to 111 Cf. Case of Blanco - Romero et al., supra note 7, para. 94; Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 1, para. 76; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 237. 112 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 266; Case of Blanco-Romero et al., supra note 7, para. 94; Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 1, para. 76. 113 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 219; Case of Blanco-Romero et al., supra note 7, para. 95; Case of Góme- Palomino, supra note 1, para. 78. 114 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 219; Case of Blanco-Romero et al., supra note 7, para. 62 and 96; Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 1, para. 79.