21. On the default of one of the parties, the Court notes that on 11 May 2017, the Respondent State indicated its intention to suspend its participation in the Court’s proceedings and requested the cessation of transmission of documents relating to the proceedings in the pending cases concerning these requests, the Respondent State voluntarily it. The Court notes that, by refrained from exercising its defence. 22. With respect to the other party's request for a Judgment in default, the Court notes that in the present case it should, in principle, have given a Judgment only at the request of the Applicant. However, in default the Court considers that, for the sake of proper administration of justice, the decision to rule in default falls within its judicial discretion. In any event, the Court renders Judgment in default suo motu where the conditions laid down in Rule 55(2) are fulfilled®. 23. Lastly, with regard to the notification of the defaulting party, the Court notes that the Application was filed on 24 February 2017. It further notes that from 29 March 2017, the date Respondent Registry of transmission State, to 19 March notified the of the 2020, Respondent notification of the Application to the the date of closure of the pleadings, the State of all the pleadings submitted by the Applicant. The Court thus concludes that the defaulting party was duly notified. 24. On the basis of the foregoing, the Court will now determine whether the other requirements set forth under Rule 55 of the Rules are fulfilled, that is: whether it has jurisdiction, whether the application is admissible and whether the Applicant's claims are founded in fact and in law.4 Vi. JURISDICTION 25. Article 3(1) of the Protocol provides as follows: 3 See African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Saif Al-Islam Kadhafi) v. Libya (Merits) (2016) 1 AFCLR 153, §§ 38-42. 4 Ibid, § 42.