00 0 820 71. The Respondent State refutes the Applicant's claims and describes the steps that were followed during proceedings at its various courts until the final determination, wherein the Resident Magistrate's Court of Bukobat2, the High Court of Tanzanial3, and the Court of Appealla, all concluded that the Applicant had committed the offence in question. *** 72. The Court notes that in crimina! proceedings the conviction of individuals for a crime should be established with certitude. In this regard, the Court has in the past held "....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."1s 73. In the instant case, the Court notes that, as stated in the record of the proceedings, the Applicant was charged and convicted essentially on the basis of information provided by the victim (PW4), corroborated by the testimonies of her family members, especially her mother (PW2), the victim's friend (pWS), the mother of her friend and the victim's aunt (PWl), who recounted what the victim herself had told them. The victim's friend (PWs) is the only eyewitness who allegedly saw the events first hand, and partially witnessed some of the facts affirming that the victim was taken away by the Applicant while she was playing with her. Criminal case No. 42 of 2010, Judgment of Bt12t2O1O: ,,27. The Court of Appealalso consrde red the Applicants defense in its Judgment at para 5, lines 1 1 - 15 and from pages 10-11 of its Judgment and concluded as follows: "We find no reason for inteiering with the finding of the first appellant Court that it was the appellant who committed the offence of rape." 12 13 Criminal Appeal No 23 of 2011, Judgment of 29t5t2014: "26. The High Court Judgement also considered the Applicant's defense from pages 4 - line 6 and concluded at page 9, line 13 by stating "His defense did not raise any doubt against the prosecution case.,, 1a Criminal Appeal No.225 of2014, Judgmentof 241212014'. "24. The Court of Appeal then considered whether it was the Applicant who committed the otfence and stated at page 10 of its Judgement: "The other issue is whether it was the penis of the appellant which pen etrated the vagina of the complainant' and held as follows at page 11 "We find no reason for interfering with the findings of the first appellant court that it was the appellant who com mitted the offence of rape 15 Mohamed Aboubakariv. Tanzania J udgment, op. cit., 174. \F*q s