defaulting party has been duly served with the application and all other documents pertinent to the proceedings. 2. Before acceding to the application of the party before it, the Court shall satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in the case, and that the application is admissible and well founded in fact and in law. 23.The Court notes that the afore-mentioned out three conditions, request made namely: Rule 55 in its paragraph i) the default of one of the parties; 1 sets ii) the by the other party; and iii) the notification to the defaulting party of both the application and the documents on file. 24. On the default of one of the parties, the Court notes that on 9 May 2017, the Respondent State had indicated its intention to suspend its participation and requested the cessation of any transmission of documents proceedings in the pending these requests, the relating to the cases concerning it. The Court notes that, by Respondent State has voluntarily refrained from asserting its defence. 25. With respect to the other party's request for a judgment in default, the Court notes that in the instant case it should, in principle, have given a judgment in default only at the request of the Applicant. However, the Court considers, that, in view of the proper administration of justice, the decision to rule by default falls within its judicial discretion. jurisdiction to render judgment In any event, the Court shall have in default suo motu if the conditions laid down in Rule 55(2) of the Rules are fulfilled 26. Lastly, with regard to the notification of the defaulting party; the Court notes that the Application was filed on 24 February 2017. The Court further notes that from 31 March 2017, the date of transmission of the notification of the Application to the Respondent State to 28 February 2019, the date of the closure of pleadings, the Registry notified the Respondent State of all the