and all other documents pertinent to the proceedings; and iii) the request made by the other Party or the discretion of the Court.1 18. In the instant case, the Application was served on the Respondent State as earlier stated. However, the Respondent State neither appeared nor filed any response, even after being reminded to do so as recounted above. The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent State chose not to exercise its right to defence. 19. With respect to the second condition, the Court notes that, on 8 March 2023, the Application and all supporting documents were served on the Respondent State, and it was requested to file its Response within 45 days thereto. The Respondent State was further notified that the Court would render a judgment in default if it failed to file its Response within an additional period of 45 days, which elapsed on 24 April 2023. The Respondent State still did not file its Response. The Court thus concludes that the defaulting Party, that is, the Respondent State, was duly notified. 20. Lastly, the Court notes that in the present case, the Applicant did not file any request for a judgment in default. However, as Rule 63(1) permits, the Court may do so suo motu. In this regard, the Court considers that, as it has previously held, it may render a judgment in default where the interests of justice require it to do so.2 The Court decides to do so in the present Application. 21. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that all requirements under Rule 63 are met, and proceeds to render the present Judgment in default. 1 Leon Mugesera v. Republic of Rwanda (judgment) (27 November 2020) 4 AfCLR 834, §§ 13-18; Fidele Mulindahabi v. Rwanda (merits and reparations) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 291, § 22; See African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Libya (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 153, §§ 38-42. 2 Mugesera v. Rwanda, ibid; Mulindahabi v. Rwanda, ibid; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Libya, ibid. 6