23.With respect to the other party's request for a judgment in default, the Court notes that in the instant case it should, in principle, have given a judgment However, in default only at the request of the Applicant. the Court considers, that, in view of the proper administration of justice, the decision to rule by default falls within its judicial discretion. the Court shall have jurisdiction to render judgment In any event, in default suo motu if the conditions laid down in Rule 55(2) of the Rules are fulfilled. 24. Finally, as regards the notification of the defaulting party, the Court notes that the Application was filed on 24 February 2017. The Court further notes that from 31 March 2017, the date of transmission of the notification of the Application to the Respondent State, to 28 February 2019, the date of the closure of written pleadings, the Registry notified the Respondent State of all the pleadings submitted by the Applicant. The Court concludes thus, that the defaulting party was duly notified. 25.On the basis of the foregoing, the Court will now determine whether the other requirements under Rule 55 of the Rules are fulfilled, that is: it has jurisdiction, that the application is admissible and that the Applicant's claims are founded in fact and in law.? Vi. JURISDICTION 26. Pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Protocol, "[t]he 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"; and “the Court shall apply the provision of the Charter and any other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the States concerned.” Furthermore, Rule 39(1) of the Rules provides that: "[t]he Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction ..." 2 African Commision on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Libya (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 153 §§ 38-42. a