21. The Court observes that the Applicants have not submitted a request for a decision by default. However, under Rule 63(1) of the Rules, the Court is empowered to render judgment by default suo motu. In this regard, the Court recalls its settled jurisprudence that it is empowered to render such a decision where the interest of justice so requires.2 The Court considers that it is appropriate, in the interest of justice, to render judgment by default in the present case. 22. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that all admissibility requirements under Rule 63(1) of the Rules are met and accordingly decides to deliver the present judgment by default. VI. JURISDICTION 23. The Court notes that Article 3 of the Protocol provides as follows: 1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the States concerned. 2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 24. Under Rule 49(1) of the Rules of Court, “[t]he Court shall ascertain its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the Application in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules”. 25. Based on the above-cited provisions, the Court, in each application, must conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and rule on objections thereto, if any. 2 Léon Mugesera v. Republic of Rwanda (judgment) (27 November 2020), 4 AfCLR 834, §§ 13 to 18. 7