90. The Court considers that regarding the allegation being examined, the question for determination is whether the Respondent State’s courts violated the Applicant's right to a fair trial by failing to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. 91. The Court recalls its jurisprudence in Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania14 that: This Court does not accept the Respondent's contention that, the issue of manifest errors at trial are not within the purview of this Court because the Court of Appeal of Tanzania has determined them with finality. Though this Court is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts, this does not preclude it from examining relevant proceedings in the national courts in order to determine whether they are in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned. With regard to manifest errors in proceedings at national courts, this Court will examine whether the national courts applied appropriate principles and international standards in resolving the errors. This is the approach that has been adopted by similar international courts. 92. As it has also held in in Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania:15 The Court underscores that domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of a particular evidence. As an international human rights court, the Court cannot take up this role from the domestic courts and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings. 14 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 130. 15 Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, §§ 65 and 66. 20