20. With regard to notification of the Application and related pleadings to the defaulting party, the Court recalls that, in the present case, the Application was served on the Respondent State on 10 November 2020 with a request to file its observations within 90 days. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State was duly notified. 21. The Court further notes that the Respondent State did not file its Response to the Application despite the reminder sent to it on 30 June 2022 advising that the Court would proceed and give judgment in default should the required submissions not be filed within the prescribed time. The Court thus finds that the Respondent State failed to defend its case. 22. Finally, the Court notes that the Rules empower it to issue a judgment in default either suo motu or at the request of one of the parties. As the Applicants have not requested for a default judgment, the Court issues this judgment suo motu for the proper administration of justice.3 23. Accordingly, the Court renders the present Ruling in default. VI. JURISDICTION 24. The Court notes that Article 3 of the Protocol provides that: 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. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Libya (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 153, §§ 38 to 42; Fidèle Mulindahabi v. Republic of Rwanda, ACtHPR, Application No. 010/2017, Judgment of 26 June 2020 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 30; Yusuph Saïd v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 011/2019, Judgment of 21 September 2021 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 17; Robert Richard v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 035/2016, Judgment of 2 December 2021 (merits and reparations), §§ 17 to 18. 3 6