16. The Court further notes that the Respondent State did not file its written observations on the said Application despite reminders sent to it on 11 February and 16 November 2022. The Court, therefore, concludes that the Respondent State failed in its obligation to present its case. 17. Lastly, the Court notes that the Rules empowers it to rule by default either on its own motion or at the request of the other Party. As the Applicant has not requested a judgment by default, the Court will render judgment on its own motion in the interest of the proper administration of justice.2 18. Accordingly, the Court decides to render its judgment in this Application by default in respect of the Respondent State. VI. JURISDICTION 19. Article 3 of the Protocol provides: 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. 20. Furthermore, Rule 49(1) of the Rules provides, “[t]he Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v. Libya (merits) (2016), 1 AfCLR 145, §§ 38 to 42; Fidèle Mulindahabi v. Rwanda, ACtHPR, Application no. 010/2017, Judgment of June 26, 2020 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 30. Yusuph Saïd v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application no. 011/2019, Judgment of September 21, 2021 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 17; Robert Richard v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application no. 035/2016, Judgment of December 2, 2021 (merits and reparations), §§ 17 to 18. 2 5