000lEt procedures laid down by the laws of the land were adhered to, othenvise, the Court would vest itself with appellate powers which are not granted to it by the Charter, the Protocoland the Rules. 63. The Respondent state argues that, the Applicant's allegations require the Court to assess the manner in which its domestic courts evaluated evidence. ln this regard, the Respondent State submits that during the course of the Applicant's trial, five prosecution witnesses testified and five exhibits were tendered and the Applicant entered his defence after he was given adequate time to prepare it. According to the Respondent State, it is after carefully examining all the evidence, including that of visual identification, that the Trial Court convicted the Applicant and the High Court and the Court of Appeal sustained the conviction. 64. According Applicant after to the a Respondent state, the domestic courts convicted the thorough and appropriate examination of all evidence. The Respondent state maintains that, the court should defer to the finding of the domestic courts in circumstances where duly established procedures laid down by the laws of the land were adhered to. 65. 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. 66. However, the fact that an allegation raises questions relating to the manner in which evidence was examined by domestic courts does not preclude the Court from determining whether the domestic procedures fulfilled international human rights standards. ln its judgment in the matter of Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania, the Court held that: "As regards, in particular, the evidence relied on in convicting the Applicant, the court holds that, it was indeed not incumbent on it to decide o their value for the purposes l6 @-