87.As regards the credibility of the witnesses, the Court notes that the national courts carefully examined the circumstances of the crime, ruled out any risk of error and concluded that the Applicant was indeed identified as the perpetrator of the alleged crime. The Court considers that the assessment of the facts or evidence by the domestic courts reveals no manifest error nor did it result in any miscarriage of justice for the Applicant. It accordingly dismisses the Applicant's allegation that the testimony regarding the visual identification was marred by irregularities. 88. For this reason, the Court holds in conclusion that there has been no violation of Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter as regards the issue of visual identification and the related testimonies and consequently, dismisses the allegation. ii. Alleged denial of opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s evidence 89.The Applicant alleges that, in the first case, the Respondent State had not properly notified him of the exhibits it would tender for him to have the opportunity to contest their admission. The Applicant contends that, despite this, the District Magistrate Court admitted Exhibits 1 to 5 tendered by the Prosecution. The Applicant argues that, by these acts, the Respondent State violated his fundamental rights enshrined in Article 26(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. 90.The Applicant further states that he made multiple requests for the witness statements to be disclosed to him so that he could effectively prepare his defence and that none of his requests was fulfilled until the end of the trial process. He avers that he raised this lack of disclosure of evidence in his Memorandum of Appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2006. The Respondent State admitted that it did not disclose the witness statements, and that the Court of Appeal had held that this omission did not constitute a ground for appeal. 26