*** 103. The Court observes from the records on file that the prosecution relied on the corroborated testimonies of the witnesses and the victim, since the medical record was expunged from the proceedings. 104. In this regard the Court observes that the Applicant has not demonstrated how the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 105. The Court recalls its jurisprudence in the matter of Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania, where it held that a fair trial requires that where a person faces a heavy prison sentence, the finding that he or she is guilty and the conviction must be based on strong and credible evidence.34 In the instant case, the Court notes that the Trial Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal determined that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Applicant committed the crime with which he was charged and this was collaborated by the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. 106. Consequently, the Court holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to fair trial as enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter and thus dismisses the allegation. VIII. REPARATIONS 107. The Court notes that Article 27(1) of the Protocol stipulates that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.” 34 Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 191-192. 28