58. The Respondent State further contends that the Court of Appeal judgment was based on evidence which was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that it therefore rightly upheld the conviction and sentence of the Applicant. *** 59. Article 7(1) provides that “[e]very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard.” 60. The Court has previously held that: … domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of a particular evidence. As an international human rights court, the Court cannot take up this role from the domestic courts and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings.20 61. The above notwithstanding, the Court can, evaluate whether the manner in which domestic proceedings were conducted including the assessment of the evidence, was done in consonance with international human rights standards. 62. The record before this Court shows that the Court of Appeal exhaustively considered the evidence presented in the Applicant’s case, including the credibility of the witnesses21 and the defence of alibi raised by the Applicant.22 The Court further considers that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate and prove that the manner in which the Court of Appeal evaluated the evidence revealed manifest errors requiring this Court’s intervention. 20 Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 65. See pages 4-6 and pages 8-12 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 314/2015). 22 See page 6 and pages 12-13 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 314/2015). 21 16