15. The Court notes that the aforementioned Rule 63(1) sets out three (3) conditions for granting a judgment in default, namely: (i) where the party does not appear before the Court, or fails to defend its case within the period prescribed by the Court, (ii) where the Court is satisfied that the defaulting party has been duly served, and (iii) upon the Court’s own cognizance or where another party applies for judgment in default. 16. With regard to the first condition, the Court observes that, although the Application was transmitted to the Respondent State, it did not file a defence.4 17. With regard to the second condition, the Court notes that it ensured that the Respondent State received the Application and all pleadings, notably through a second communication made to the Respondent State on 25 March 2024. The Court notes that the Respondent State has not filed a Response despite the additional period of 45 days granted to it. 18. Regarding the third condition, the Court notes that rule 63(1) of the Rules confers on it the power to deliver a judgment by default either ex officio or at the request of the other Party. In the instant Application, the Applicant has not made a request to this end. The Court will thus proceed to render a judgment by default for the proper administration of justice.5 19. The required conditions having thus been fulfilled, the Court hereby proceeds to issue this judgment by default.6 4 By letter dated September 6, 2018, received at the Registry on September 13, 2018, the Respondent State requested an extension of the deadline for filing its response to the Application and indicated that the delay was due to the need to consult various stakeholders. The Respondent State in a letter dated 12 February 2019 received at the Registry on 20 March 2020, requested the Court for an extension of six (6) months in which to file its response to the forty-nine (49) Applications including this one and on reparations. The reason provided was that it was moving offices to a new location, additionally, there was current shortage of human resources to deal with the heavy workload to file responses in time and finally, there was need to consult with various stakeholder and to deliberate with government agencies. 5 Commission africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples c. Libye (fond) (2016) 1 RJCA 158, §§ 38 à 42; Fidèle Mulindahabi c. Rwanda, CAfDHP, Requête n° 010/2017, Arrêt du 26 juin 2020 (compétence et recevabilité), § 30. Yusuph Said c. République-Unie de Tanzanie, CAfDHP, Requête n° 011/2019, Arrêt du 21 septembre 2021 (compétence et recevabilité), § 17; Robert Richard c. République-Unie de Tanzanie, CAfDHP, Requête n° 035/2016, Arrêt du 2 décembre 2021 (fond et réparations), §§ 17 à 18. 6 Ibid. 5