of the basis of the Commission's request stemmed from the need to take measures due to the uncertainty caused by not knowing the whereabouts of the older girl (supra Considering clause 9) or health and adaptation process of either of the two girls (supra Considering clause 9). This uncertainty was due to the State’s unwillingness to present complete information on the two girls. 17. Taking into account the information presented by the State, the Court considers that the State has taken specific measures that have mitigated the situation of extreme gravity and urgency as well as the possibility of irreparable harm that was initially described by the Commission in its request. Specifically, the Court recalls that a fundamental aspect of the initial request was determining the whereabouts of the older girl and the general state of both girls, which has been established. Moreover, the Court considers that the relevant State institutions are aware of the complex situation the two girls are living and have adopted special measures such as the creation of a multidisciplinary health team in charge of monitoring the health of the girls (supra Considering clause 10), the development of a protocol for the immunization of the girls (supra Considering clause 10), the protocols and procedures created by the Ministry of Health and the General Prosecutor’s Office to monitor the health and adaptation process of the girls, (supra Considering clause 10), among others. 18. Moreover, the Court takes into account the information provided by the State, wherein, despite the girls’ difficult situation, generally they are both in good health and in a process of adapting to their foster families and communities (supra Considering clause 11). While it is alleged that the conflict in the area continues between the communities and that the girls are in a particularly complex situation regarding the process of adapting to their new surroundings, the Court considers that the State has been adopting special measures to monitor and protect their rights. As such, considering the monitoring procedures being implemented by some State institutions, the requirements established in Article 63(2) of the American Convention have not been met, and thus the adoption of provisional measures on this matter is not applicable. Notwithstanding, the Court considers that it is indispensable that the State continue to adopt the necessary measures to assure that, in the least amount of time possible, the younger girl is joined with the older girl. 19. Finally, the Tribunal recalls that the States have the constant and permanent duty of complying with the general obligations that correspond to it under Article 1(1) of the Convention, of respecting the rights and liberties recognized in it and guaranteeing the free and full exercise to each person subject to its jurisdiction.20 As a consequence, independent of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State has the particular obligation of guaranteeing the rights of persons that are at risk, and it must effectuate the necessary investigations to clarify what took place, and where possible, punish those responsible. 21 In this matter, the Court exhorts the Ecuadorian State to continue carrying out and monitoring the measures that have been implemented, and specifically, to reunite the two girls as soon as possible. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 20 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, Considering clause 3, and Case of de La Cruz Flores V. Perú, Considering clause 30. 21 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, Considering clause 3, and Matter of Guerrero Galluci. Provisional measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 21, 2011, Considering clause 28. 12