0c0?98 they found that the Applicant was positively identified as having commifted the cnme 66.The Applicant's allegation that there was not enough light to.properly identify him as the assailant so as to warrant his conviction are all details that concern particularities of evidence, the assessment of which must be left to the national courts. 67. ln view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the manner in which the national courts evaluated the facts and evidence and the weight they gave to them does not disclose any manifest error or miscarriage of justice to the Applicant which requires this Court's intervention. The Court therefore dismisses this allegation of the Applicant. B. Allegation of failure to summon the defence witnesses 68.The Applicant alleges that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial because the trial magistrate did not exercise the power to summon his witnesses even after the Applicant notified the trial court of the said witnesses. He avers that he also raised this complaint on appeal at the High Court. 69. The Respondent State avers that the right to a fair hearing is provided for under Article 31(6)(a) of the Constitution of Tanzania and was granted to the Applicant at every stage of the case. lt submits further that Section 231(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (2002) mandates the trial magistrate to summon defence witnesses where the lack of attendance by the witnesses was not occasioned by the fault or neglect of the accused. T0.According to the Respondent State, the Applicant did not give notice of any witnesses in his defence but preferred to testify on his own. T7 /..?