miscarriage of justice.2° The Court finds that this is not the case in the instant matter. 81. The Court also notes that the Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts’ determinations on the credibility of the Prosecution witnesses PW1, and PW?3. The PW1 PW2, was the victim, PW2 was the victim’s friend who claims to have witnessed the rape and PW3 was the neighbour whom the Applicant claimed fabricated the case against him because ofa disagreement she had with him. The Court notes that the Court of Appeal found no reason for it to conclude that the three (3) witnesses colluded to incriminate the Applicant. 82. The Court further notes that the Court of Appeal examined the Applicant's alibi that, on the material day, the Applicant was outside the area where the crime was committed and he did not return until about 7:05 p.m. The crime was allegedly committed after 5:00 p.m. The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of the lower courts that, although the Applicant had been outside the area of the crime, by the time he left the house of his alibi witness, a primary court magistrate, he would still have had time to arrive at the scene of the crime, since he had a bicycle and the distance was not far. 83. The Court recalls that “a fair trial that requires 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 In the instant case, the Court is of the view that nothing on the record shows that the evidence on which the domestic courts relied to convict the Applicant was not solid or credible. 84. In view of the aforesaid, the Court accordingly considers that the Applicant's right to a fair trial provided for in Article 7(1) of the Charter has not been violated, as the conviction was based circumstances of the crime were clarified. 20 Ibid. 21 Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (merits), § 174. 22 on sufficient evidence and the