Application and all supporting documents were served on the Respondent State and it was requested to file its response within ninety (90) days of receipt. The Respondent State was further notified that the Court would issue a default judgment if it failed to file its response within an additional extension of forty-five (45) days. Despite this, the Respondent State did not respond thereto and ultimately, pleadings were closed on 12 May 2023. The Court thus concludes that the defaulting party, that is, the Respondent State, was duly notified. 18. With regard to the default of one of the Parties, the Court notes that, on 13 May 2021, it requested the Respondent State to file its response to the Application within ninety (90) days. However, the Respondent State did not submit its response. The Court further observes that, on 30 June 2022, the Registry reminded the Respondent State that the time-limit to file a response to the Application had elapsed. The Registry also informed the Parties that if it did not receive any response within forty-five (45) days, the Court would proceed to pass judgment in default. Despite these reminders, the Respondent State did not file any response. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State has not exercised its right to defense. 19. With respect to the last condition, the Court notes pursuant to Rule 63 of the Rules that it can render judgment in default either suo motu or on request of the other party. The Applicant having not requested for a default judgment, the Court decides suo motu, and for the proper administration of justice, to render the judgment by default. 20. The requirements having thus been met, the Court renders this judgment by default VI. JURISDICTION 21. Article 3 of the Protocol provides that: 6