offence he was convicted of …”. He surmises that his conviction was therefore due to failure by the domestic courts to adequately consider exculpatory evidence. * 66. The Respondent State disputes the allegations and puts the Applicant to strict proof. Specifically, the Respondent State submits that the Applicant was convicted on the basis of identification evidence which the trial court found to be satisfactory. It also points out that the evidence was considered by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, both of which found that the trial court was judicious in its reasoning. The Respondent State therefore submits that the Applicant’s allegation lacks merit and should be dismissed. *** 67. Article 7(1) of the Charter provides that “[e]very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard …”. 68. The Court recalls that in the case of Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania, it held that: … domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of a particular evidence, and as an international court, this court cannot take up this role from the domestic courts and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings.17 69. The above notwithstanding, the Court can nevertheless evaluate whether the manner in which domestic proceedings were conducted, including the conduct of proceedings as well as the assessment of the evidence, was done in consonance with international human rights standards.18 17 18 Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 65. Ibid, § 66. 17