of the European Court, the Applicant argues that a conviction based on unconvincing evidence violates the presumption of innocence and thereby the right to trial. Additionally, that this Court has held in the case of Abubakari v. Tanzania and William v. Tanzania, that a sentence should be based on strong and credible evidence and a criminal conviction must be “established with certitude”. 112. The Applicant alleges that he was convicted on the basis of uncorroborated, unreliable and incomplete evidence, thereby violating his right to presumption of innocence. He argues that the case against him was primarily based on the testimony of one eyewitness, who allegedly identified the Applicant at night with limited visibility and under the stress of traumatic events. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to corroborate or properly evaluate the weak and contradictory identification evidence that was relied upon to identify the Applicant as the victim’s assailant. The Applicant also claims that there were discrepancies between the testimonies of the eyewitness and other witnesses as to what the Applicant was wearing, whether he broke into the house of the deceased or went through the open door as well as the words that were allegedly spoken. He avers that any doubts toward the credibility of the eyewitness, should have been resolved in his favour. 113. Another issue raised by the Applicant in this regard, is that the trial court admitted into evidence a statement of the co-accused, his brother Evaristo Lazaro, who was only fifteen years at the time but who later testified that his statement was obtained through coercion as it was forcefully recorded after he had been beaten up by the police with a truncheon, and that he subsequently retracted the same. The Applicant further submits that the Respondent State did not produce any evidence of the murder weapon or prove intent on the part of the Applicant to commit the murder. The Applicant surmises that as such, the Respondent State failed to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby violating his right to presumption of innocence. 114. Finally, the Applicant contends that he was arrested, taken away from the company of his wife and children for 17 years, based on an improper 31