Court because the Court of Appeal of Tanzania has determined them with finality. Though this Court is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts 27 , this does not preclude it from examining relevant proceedings in the national courts in order to determine whether they are in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned. With regard to manifest errors in proceedings at national courts, this Court will examine whether the national courts applied appropriate principles and international standards in resolving the errors. This is the approach that has been adopted by similar international courts.28 131. The Court finds that the alleged manifest errors relating to the value of the property, proof that the offence of armed robbery I occurred, the authenticity of the Police Form 3 issued to the alleged victim of the armed robbery and the causal connection between the Applicant and the allegedly recently stolen goods were not of such a nature as to deny the Applicant his right to a fair trial. However, the 27 See Application 001/2013 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Republic of Malawi. 28 See Application No. 76809101 Bavmann v Austria ECHR Judgment of 7 October 2004 paragraph 49; Communication 375/09 Priscilla Njeri Echaria (represented b_r Federation of Women Lawyers, Kenya and International Center for the Protection of Human Rights) v Kenya ACHPR 5 November 2011 paragraph 36; Case of Santiago Marzioni v Argentina 11.673, Report No. 39196, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, OEA/Ser. UV/11.95 Doc. 7 rev. at 76 (1997) paragraph 51. Also see Application No. 30544/96 Garcia Ruiz v Spain, Judgment of 21 January 1999 (Grand Chamber) paragraph 28, Application No. 47287/99 Perez v France Judgment of 12 February 2004 (Grand Chamber) paragraph 81, Application No 34553/97, Dufaurans v France Judgment of 21 March 2000, paragraph 39. 53