16. The Respondent State did not file its Response and did not make any prayers. V. ON THE DEFAULT BY THE RESPONDENT STATE 17. According to Rule 63(1) of the Rules of Court, Whenever a party does not appear before the Court, or fails to defend its case within the period prescribed by the Court, the Court may, on the Application of the other party, or on its own motion, enter judgment in default after it has satisfied itself that the defaulting party has been duly served with the Application and all other documents pertinent to the proceedings. 18. The Court notes that the above-mentioned Rule 63(1) lays down three requirements for issuing a judgment by default, namely: (i) notification of the application and all pertinent documents to the Respondent State; (ii) failure by the Respondent State to appear or to file a response; and (iii) a request made by the other party or a decision of the Court of its own motion. 19. With regard to notification of the Application and all pertinent documents, the Court recalls that in the present case the Application was transmitted to the Respondent State on 9 September 2020 for its Response within 90 days. The Court therefore finds that the defaulting party, in this case, the Respondent State duly received notification of the Application and the procedural documents. 20. With regard to the requirement relating to the Respondent State’s failure to appear or to file a response, the Court notes that the Respondent State was not represented in the present proceedings and did not file a response to the Application despite having been granted an initial period of 90 days and additional 45 days to do so. The Court finds that the Respondent State thus defaulted by failing to defend its case. 6