evidence. That is the purport of the right to the presumption of innocence also enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter.”9 53. In the instant case, the Court notes that the issue for determination is whether the consideration of evidence before the domestic courts was in accordance with the requirements of a fair trial. In this regard, the Court notes from the record that the Applicant was represented by counsel, Mr Nathan Alex, and was given the same opportunity to present his case as the prosecution. At the conclusion of the defence case, the judge found that the prosecution had proven its case through the testimonies of four (4) eyewitnesses who knew the Applicant. Furthermore, the learned judge was also unconvinced by the Applicant’s alibi that he was on the farm on that fateful day when he “struck a moving object with a machete in self-defence”. 54. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the manner in which the domestic proceedings were conducted does not disclose any manifest error or miscarriage of justice. 55. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s allegation and holds that the Respondent State did not violate his right to have one’s cause heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to life 56. The Applicant alleges that his death sentence is a violation of the right to life. 57. The Respondent State contends that even though the death penalty has been subject to many national debates, it continues to be legal in Tanzania. Citing the case of Dominic Mbushuu v. The Republic, the Respondent State 9 Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), § 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. 13