28. The Court notes that the afore-mentioned Rule 55 in its paragraph 1 sets out three conditions, request made namely: i) the default of one of the parties; ii) the by the other party; and iii) the notification to the defaulting party of both the application and the documents on file. 29. On the default of one of the parties, the Court notes that on 9 May 2017, the Respondent State had indicated its intention to suspend its participation and requested the cessation of any transmission of documents relating to the proceedings in the pending cases concerning it. The Court notes that, by these requests, the Respondent State has voluntarily refrained from asserting its defence. 30. 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 in default only at the request of the Applicant. However, the Court considers, that, in view of the proper administration of justice, the decision to rule by default falls within its judicial discretion. jurisdiction to render judgment In any event, the Court shall have in default suo motu if the conditions laid down in Rule 55(2) of the Rules are fulfilled. 31. 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 the 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. 32.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