17. As regards notification of the application and the pleadings, the Court recalls that in the instant case, the Application and the pleadings were served on the Respondent State on 9 September 2020 for its Response within 90 days. The Court finds that the Respondent State was duly notified. 18. As regards the second condition relating to the Respondent State failing to enter an appearance or to file a response, the Court notes that the Respondent State was not represented in the present proceedings and it also failed to file a response to the Application notwithstanding that it was granted an initial time-limit of 90 days and extension of 45 days subsequently. The Court finds that the Respondent State thus failed in its obligation to defend its case. 19. Finally, the Court notes that Rule 63(1) of the Rules empowers it to render a judgment in default either on its own motion or at the request of the other party. In the instant case, the Court decides suo motu in the interests of justice, to render a default judgment. 20. In light of the foregoing, the Court renders this judgment by default.3 VI. JURISDICTION 21. 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. 3 Fory v. Côte d’Ivoire supra, § 15-21. 6