and two Waorani women who are approximately 45 years old, and who directly care for” the older girl. viii) Regarding the alleged traumatic effects generated by the original separation of the family, the report of August 7, 2013, of the Ministry of Public Health addresses “the episodes of conflict experienced by the girls as part of the social order, which includes notions of war and peace that correspond to cultural codes that differ from those in western culture.” ix) “Pursuant to the psychological report provided by the Ministry of Health, the method used by the specialist to psychologically approach the two girls [...] was observation and play since the psychological examinations do not apply to this cultural context.” Pursuant to this report, “the family group where the two girls live is extensive (not nuclear) and they share space with other children who have blood relationship as children and grandchildren and where there are various generations sharing living space.” Moreover, the “children of the Waorani communities, in the case of both the [older and younger girl] socialize and teach the Wao language to the girls and thus their communication improves each day.” “The western cultural notion of trauma is not applicable to the cultural situation of the girls.” 14. In relation to this information, on March 5, 2014, the Inter-American Commission reiterated that “this information was not provided to the Commission despite the multiple requests that were made” in 2013. It added that “taking into account the sequence of traumatic events lived by the girls and the isolation which they have lived most of their lives,” “beyond the immunizations and checkups described,” the State must provide “all the means at its reach to assure that the physical and psychological monitoring of the girls is continuous, comprehensive, and culturally appropriate.” It noted that there was a “sort of agreement” between the State and the petitioners as to the “older girl staying in the care of the family and community where she currently lives.” “Nevertheless, in regard to the younger girl, the situation described in the request for provisional measures has not varied substantially,” given that “it is not clear” what “specific measures were adopted by the State to address the risk to which the younger girl is exposed in the family and community where she currently lives.” In addition, it noted its “concern about the conflict in the area between members of the Waorani indigenous peoples,” and “the indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation.” “In this sense, the State’s report mentions that on February 17, 2014, there was another “attack” by the members of the Waorani peoples, against those living in voluntary isolation, with no explanation.” “In this sense, the presence of the younger girl – who comes from a village in voluntary isolation and who was taken as a sort of war prize – in a community of the Waorani peoples where it is not clear if there is a relationship or link with the communities in conflict, constitutes an indication that the risk to life and personal integrity persists.” 15. As a first preliminary point, the Court recalls that the adoption of urgent or provisional measures does not imply a possible decision on the merits of a matter if the case where to eventually be heard by the Court, nor does it prejudge the State’s responsibility for the facts.19 16. The Court notes that the information it has been provided to carry out the analysis of the request for provisional measures is substantially different from the information that the Inter-American Commission had when establishing the grounds for its request. Indeed, part 19 Cf. Matter of James et al.. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 13, 1998, Considering clause 6, and Matter of L.M., Provisional measures regarding Paraguay, Order of the Court of July 1, 2001, Considering clause 22. 11