and Court of Appeal concurred that the conduct of the Applicant in escaping from the village as stated by his own father, PW3, is sufficient evidence to corroborate the dying declaration.46 The record, therefore, shows that the evidence was fairly evaluated and that it was strong and credible to warrant a conviction. 102. Additionally, on the Applicant’s allegation that the prosecuting authorities of the Respondent State failed to corroborate or properly evaluate contradictory eyewitness testimony used to identify him as the assailant, this Court finds no manifest error as to the manner in which the domestic courts dealt with the evidence of identification and the dying declaration. This Court reiterates its position that when visual or voice identification is used as evidence to convict a person, all circumstances of possible error should be ruled out and the identity of the suspect should be established with certitude.47 In the instant case, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, after taking cognizance of the dangers of visual identification, satisfied themselves that the Applicant was properly identified as stated above. The domestic courts also noted that in view of the strong evidence on the record, corroboration was not necessary. 103. This Court is cognizant of the Applicant’s submission that PW1 and PW2 tendered contradictory evidence regarding his whereabouts after the incident. In this respect, the Court notes that both the High Court and Court of Appeal examined the submissions and evidence before them and held that there was no material contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution. 104. With regards to the Applicant’s allegation that the prosecution failed to introduce any forensic evidence, the record before this Court shows that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal relied on the evidence of three (3) witnesses and a dying declaration. The domestic courts evaluated the The Republic v. Dominick S/O Damian, Criminal Sessions Case No. 61 of 2008, ibid, page 19 and Dominick Damian v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2013, ibid, pages 5-6. 47 Ivan v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 64 and Niyonzima Augustine v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 058/2016, Judgment of 13 June 2023 (judgment), § 96. 46 29