corroborative evidence to establish that the Applicant committed the offence of rape, taking into account the testimonies provided by witnesses. 98. This Court observes that the Court of Appeal, in reviewing this ground of appeal, considered the evidence on record, the statement of the victim and the testimony of the clinical officer who examined the victim and testified that he found that the victim had bruises on her neck caused by a blunt object. It therefore held that the trial Magistrate was justified in finding that the offence of rape was established since there was penetration supported by corroborative evidence and accordingly upheld the decision of the High Court, thereby dismissing the Applicant’s ground of appeal. 99. This Court further observes that although the trial court erred was procedurally inconsistent in admitting the P3 Form, this was not considered by the High Court and Court of appeal when evaluating the evidence. The procedure therefore did not disclose any manifest error resulting in a miscarriage of justice requiring the Court’s intervention. 100. Consequently, the Court holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to fair trial as enshrined in Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter and consequently dismisses the allegation. iv. Allegation that the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt 101. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a mistrial and a miscarriage of justice. * 102. The Respondent State avers that the standard of proof in criminal cases is one beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which it did at the Trial Court, and that is why the decision of the Trial court was upheld by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. 27