duly served with the Application and all other documents pertinent to the proceedings. 23. The Court notes that Rule 63(1) of the Rules sets out three conditions under which it may render judgment in default, namely: i) notification to the Respondent State of both the application and the documents on file; ii) default of the Respondent State; and iii) application by the other party or the Court’s decision to render a judgment in default on its own motion. 24. With regard to the first condition, namely, notification of the Respondent State, the Court recalls that the Application was served on the Respondent State on 30 July 2021. Furthermore, from the service of the Application on the Respondent State to the close of pleadings, the Registry transmitted all the pleadings submitted by the Applicant to the Respondent State, and the record bears proof of delivery of those notifications. The Court thus finds that the Respondent State was duly notified. 25. In respect of the second condition, the Court notes that, in the notice of service of the Application, the Respondent State, was granted 60 days to file its Response. However, it failed to do so within the time allocated. The Court further sent two reminders to the Respondent State on 3 March 2022 and 10 August 2022 and, on 29 November 2024, granted the Respondent State 30 days extension of time. Notwithstanding these reminders and extension of time, the Respondent State did not file its Response. The Court thus finds that the Respondent State has failed to defend its case within the prescribed time. 26. Finally, on the third condition, the Court notes that it can render judgment in default either suo motu or upon request of the other party. The Applicant having not requested for a default judgment, the Court decides suo motu, for the proper administration of justice to render this judgment in default. 7