the other party or the Court’s decision to give a judgment in default on its own motion. 16. With regards to the first condition, namely, notification of the Respondent State, the Court recalls that the Application was served on the Respondent State on 24 August 2016. Furthermore, from the date of service of the Application on the Respondent State to the date of the close of pleadings, the Registry transmitted all the pleadings submitted by the Applicant to the Respondent State. In this regard, the Court also notes from the record, the proof of delivery of those notifications. The Court thus finds that the Respondent State was duly notified. 17. In respect of the second condition, the Court notes that, in the notice of service of the Application, the Respondent State, was granted sixty (60) days to file its Response. However, it failed to do so within the time allocated. The Court further sent four (4) reminders to the Respondent State on the following dates: 19 November 2018, 4 February 2019, 6 February 2019 and 15 April 2019. Notwithstanding these reminders, 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. 18. 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. 19. The required conditions having thus been fulfilled, the Court renders this judgment in default.4 4 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Libya (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 153, §§ 38-42. 5