inconsistent and their visual identification of the Applicant was “nothing but dock identification’’. 27 Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed their visual identification as unsatisfactory evidence. In spite of this, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of the Applicant, basing its decision on the doctrine of recent possession. The Court emphasised that the stolen items were in alignment with the description provided by the victim (PW 1), and noteworthy, the Applicant did not raise any objections when the items were submitted as exhibits. 85. The Court observes that despite some variations in their reasoning and evaluation of the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, all three domestic courts arrived at the same conclusion regarding the Applicant’s guilt. 86. The Court notes that, taken as a whole, the manner in which the domestic courts evaluated the evidence leading to the Applicant’s conviction does not reveal any manifest errors or miscarriage of justice to the Applicant. Acknowledging the margin of appreciation that domestic courts have in assessing evidence, in the circumstances of this case, the Court finds it appropriate to accord deference to their determinations. 28 87. In light of the aforementioned considerations, the Court finds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicant’s right to be heard guaranteed by Article 7(1) of the Charter. ii. Alleged violation of the right to legal representation 88. The Applicant contends that the Respondent State violated his right to legal assistance contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. He claims that despite having been charged with a serious offence, he was not afforded free legal assistance throughout his trial and appellate proceedings. 27 Ibid, p. 7. Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 73; Werema and Werema v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 63. 28 22