84 and hindrances caused to the investigation, as well as the unjustified delays in the proceedings, all of which has provided partial impunity in this case. 289. The Court repeats that the State is obliged to combat this situation by resorting to all available means, as impunity fosters the chronic repetition of human rights violations and renders victims and their relatives, who have a right to know the truth concerning the events, completely defenseless261. The acknowledgment and exercise of the right to know the truth in a specific situation constitutes a means of reparation. Therefore, in the instant case, the right to know the truth gives rise to the victims’ expectations, which the State must satisfy.262 290. As for measures to fight impunity, the State held that “the National Office of the Attorney General has adopted juridical interpretations aimed at preventing events of impunity”. 291. In this regard, the Court notes that the Office of the Attorney General has held two distinct positions concerning the investigation of conspiracy to commit a crime and the analysis of whether or not it may be prosecuted under the applicable statute of limitations, taking into account the paramilitary member's involvement in the commission of serious human rights violations.263 In one case, the Office of the Attorney General held that aggravated conspiracy to commit a crime, “although not within the categories of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity, does have a close relation with them, making it exempt from any statute of limitations” on criminal prosecution against serious human rights violations.264 However, in another resolution, the Office of the Attorney General failed to establish whether there exists a "close relationship" between conspiracy to commit a crime and serious human rights violations and instead stated that “no charges may be brought against” four persons for conspiracy to commit a crime, since the criminal action had been time-barred under the statute of limitations.265 The result of the latter finding was that the investigation regarding one person accused of being a member of “Los Masetos” was closed. 292. The Court stresses that when a judicial officer decides that a criminal action for conspiracy brought against a member of a paramilitary group is time barred, this decision should be based upon an exhaustive assessment of evidence which verifies that the paramilitary member’s participation and association with this paramilitary group was unrelated to the commission of grave violations of human rights 261 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 440; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 16, para. 148; and Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 7, para. 204. 262 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 440; Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 119, para. 95; and Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 7, para. 204. 263 Concerning the cases of Waldo Patiño García and retired Lieutenant Luis Enrique Andrade Ortiz (supra notes 135 and 144). 264 Cf. order of January 19, 2007 issued by the Office of the Fourteenth Specialized Prosecutor for the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit (record of evidences to the State’s written closing, volume II, pages 8015 and 8018). 265 Cf. order issued on March 21, 2006 by the Office of the Fourteenth Specialized Prosecutor for the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume II, evidence 3U, pages 5026 and 5041)