68. The Respondent State denies the allegation of the Applicant and puts him to “strict proof”. It argues that the Court of Appeal considered all the Applicant’s grounds of appeal and dismissed them. According to the Respondent State, the fact that the Court of Appeal rejected the Applicant’s grounds of appeal does not mean that they were not considered. 69. Furthermore, the Respondent State reiterates that the Applicant should have filed an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment if he was aggrieved with the same. *** 70. Article 7(1) of the Charter provides that “[e]very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard …” 71. This Court has in the past noted “… that a fair trial requires that the imposition of a sentence in a criminal offence, and in particular a heavy prison sentence, should be based on strong and credible evidence. That is the purport of the right to the presumption of innocence also enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter.”12 72. In the instant case, the Applicant alleges that the Court of Appeal only considered some of his grounds of appeal which resulted in prejudice against him. He especially argues that the defence of intoxication was not considered. 73. The Court observes, based on the record that, the Court of Appeal noted that the Applicant raised three (3) grounds of appeal, namely, the age of the victim was not proved; penetration was not proved and lastly, that his defence of intoxication was not considered in the District Court and the High Court. Citing its jurisprudence in the case of Jafari Mohamed v. the Republic, the Court of Appeal held that the grounds of appeal related to the 12 Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 174; William v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 72. Majid Goa alias Vedastus v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (26 September 2019) 3 AfCLR 498, § 72. 16