000$20 60.The Court also observes that when visual identification is used as a source of evidence to convict a person, all circumstances of possible mistakes should be ruled out and the identity of the suspect should be established with certainty. This is also the accepted principle in the Tanzanian jurisprudence.ll ln addition, the evidence of visual identification must demonstrate a coherent and consistent account of the scene of the crime. The Court has also previously stated that it is 'as not an appellate court and a matter of principle, it is up to national courts to decide on the probative value of a particular piece of evidence.l2 The Court cannot assume this role of the domestic courts and investigate the details and particulars of evidence used in domestic proceedings to establish the criminal culpability of individuals.l3 o 61.|n the instant case, the record before this Court shows that the domestic courts convicted the Applicants on the basis of evidence tendered by six (6) prosecution witnesses, three (3) of whom were present at the scene of the crime. The statements made by these witnesses were generally similar and revealed a consistent account of the scene of the crime. 62.As regards the Applicants' claim that there were some inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the Court notes from the record of the trial court that indeed PW 2 was laughing while testifying before the trial court "as [if hel was not serious of what he [was] talking [about]". lt is also true that the four (4) prosecution witnesses (PW 1, PW2, PW 4 and PW 6) had a close relationship o which might have created the possibility of collusion. Furthermore, the fourth Prosecution Witness (PW 4), an investigation officer "confirmed that PW 1(main victim) made two statements, the first one on the day of the incident without naming any suspects" and the second one, mentioning the Applicants as the perpetrators. This 11 ln the Matter of Waziri Amaniv. United Republic of Tanzania, the Court of Appeal declared that "no court should act on evidence of visual identification unless all possibilities of mistaken identity are eliminated and the court is fully satisfied that the evidence before it is absolutely watertight'. lbid, S 175. 12 Kiii lsiaga v Tanzania Judgment, $ 65. 13 lbid. 19 "-S T