counsel were provided with the evidence on which the national courts based their judgments. The Respondent further elaborates that there is no law preventing the national courts from relying on the testimony of a witness who was a co-accused of the Applicant. According to the Respondent State the national courts had found that the co-accused was not an accomplice to the murder of Mr Rai and therefore settled this matter which was raised before the Court of appeal. 92. The Court notes that the Applicant’s unsubstantiated allegations relate to his rights protected by Article 7(1) of the Charter. 93. Article 7(1) of the Charter provides that: i. Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard…” 94. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that: …domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of a particular evidence, and as an international court, this court cannot take up this role from the domestic courts and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings.19 95. In the instant case, the Court observes from the record, that, the national courts examined the Applicant’s allegation that prosecution witness no. 1 framed the Applicant for the crime in order to absolve himself of any guilt and found no evidence to support that claim. On the contrary, the domestic courts found that the testimony of the co-accused was credible and it proved that the Applicant had committed the crime. 96. The Court, therefore, considers that the manner in which the national courts evaluated the evidence does not disclose any manifest error requiring its intervention. 19 Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 65. 22