 demonstrates empathy with her host family. She participates in a proactive manner in kids games and activities in the community. The EAIS monitoring team: two doctors, a dentist, a licensed nurse, and health care promoter 11. Based on the information that was provided, the State argued that it has “safeguarded the life and personal integrity of the two girls as confirmed by the efforts carried out by the Ministry of Health, which in order to mitigate any risk to life, took the necessary measures to monitor and immunize the girls.” It added that “from the documents that [were attached], it is evident that since the elements of ‘extreme gravity’ and urgency do not exist, the materialization of damage is less likely.” Thus, the State concluded that “the request made by the [Commission] does not fulfill the requirements established by the American Convention […] for provisional measures, and thus it is not necessary that […] the Court hear this request.” 12. Regarding the information and arguments presented by the State, the Commission stated that “the information was not made known to it despite the multiple requests made during 2013.” It argued that the information provided by the State "even though it includes some information on the current state of the girls, it is not sufficient information to understand the details about how each of the risk factors has been addressed by the State.” Moreover, the Commission stated that those requesting the measures informed that the prosecution was planning a police operation to rescue the younger girl. It added that the risk factors presented in the request for provisional measures are still present. Given the abovementioned, the Commission considered it necessary that "taking into account the complexity of the case, the age of the girls, and the state of vulnerability to which they are exposed, [...] the [...] Court require additional information from the State of Ecuador on these aspects.” 13. As was noted (supra Having Seen clause 9), the Court required additional information from the State. On February 18, 2014, the State noted the following: i) Regarding the possible police operation to take place where the young girl is located, according to a report dated February 17 “of this year,” of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the State, there was an attack perpetrated against members of a family in voluntary isolation that was organized and carried out by seventeen (17) persons who belong to the Waorani communities of Yarentaro and Dikaro. ii) “Given that this is a matter of cultural and legal concern, the General Prosecutor’s Office of the State added an anthropological report to the case file to establish grounds for the pretrial investigation and the preliminary investigation procedure. In these procedures, the Prosecutor’s Office took into account the principles of intercultural justice.” iii) The return of the girls to a nanicabo (family group) in isolation where they once resided, “is currently inapplicable due to physical and epidemiological reasons that could severely threaten the life of the peoples in voluntary isolation, given that the minors have been periodically immunized, and that they have been in contact with the indigenous Waorani communities, as is evident from the information provided by the Ministry of Public Health.” iv) “The Prosecutor’s Office noted that in consideration of the girls’ best interest, there is no doubt about the state of wellbeing in which the [older girl] is currently living and about the convenience of reuniting the younger girl [who is currently in the 9