000800 the witnesses to identify him during the commission of the alleged crime was questionable. 59. The Respondent State refutes all the allegations raised by the Applicant, noting that the Applicant's conviction was based on credible identification evidence. lt also avers that over and above the identification evidence, the Court of Appeal found that the said witnesses had done their identification at the earliest possible opportunity which gave even more credence to their testimony. 60.The Respondent State submits that the evidence was analysed in all the domestic proceedings, adding that the Applicant was convicted not only as a result of voice evidence and visual evidence and the fact that witnesses were able to name the Applicant, whom they knew before the incident, to be the assailant. The Respondent State adds that other evidence, apart from voice and visual identification placed the Applicant at the scene of the crime at the material date and time when the crime was committed. 61. The Court notes that it does not have the power to evaluate matters of evidence that were settled in national courts. Nevertheless, the Court has the power to determine whether the assessment of the evidence in the national courts complies with relevant provisions of international human rights instruments. 62. The Court further reiterates its position in the matter of Kijiji lsiaga v. Tanzania that: "...domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of discretion 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 15 /a e---