court did not rely on her testimony. The Respondent State therefore argues that this allegation has no merit. *** 65. Article 7(1) of the Charter provides that “(e)very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard …”. 66. 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.”13 67. In the instant case, the Applicant challenges the evidence adduced and also the conduct of the voir dire proceedings. The record shows that the national courts considered PW1’s testimony, who was the mother of the victim to be credible. The national courts observed that PW1 had noticed that her daughter was in pain and was walking with difficulty and that she also saw “some sperms all over her legs”. PW1’s testimony was corroborated by Prosecution Witness 4’s testimony, the medical doctor who examined the victim after the sexual offence, and who confirmed that the act of “rape” had occurred. 68. Regarding the voir dire,14 the record shows that the magistrate properly conducted the procedure to determine whether the victim had the capacity to testify according to Section 127 of the Evidence Act of 1967 (revised in 13 Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 174; Diocles Williams v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 426, § 72. Majid Goa v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (2019) 3 AfCLR 498, § 72. 14 This is a procedure conducted by a court where it assesses whether a child of tender years is capable of comprehending the nature and obligation an oath. 16