83.The Court recalls its position, that domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of discretion in evaluating the probative value of evidence. As an international human rights court, the Court cannot substitute itself for the domestic courts and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings.”° 84.As regards the issue of identification parade, the Court also notes that “it is a matter of common sense that in criminal proceedings, identification parade is not necessary and cannot be carried out if witnesses previously knew or saw a suspect before the identification parade (was conducted). The Court notes that this is also the practice in the jurisdiction of the Respondent State.”2> 85. The Court has also consistently held in its jurisprudence 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...”.2” 86.In the instant case, the record shows that the domestic courts convicted the Applicant on the basis of evidence from the visual identification of two prosecution witnesses, that is, PW2 and PW3, themselves victims of the crime. These witnesses were with the Applicant in the pick-up vehicle for nearly two (2) hours recognised identify him. on the road. the Applicant According to the national during this time and In the circumstances, were courts, the witnesses able to subsequently the Court holds that the omission of the identification parade does not constitute a miscarriage of justice, and therefore is not a violation to the Applicant's right to a fair trial. Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 218, §65; Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations), §-§ 107-108. 28Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2017) 2 AFCLR 68, § 86. 27Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits), §174; Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), §105. 25