*** 126. Pursuant to Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, every individual has the right to have his cause heard and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal. 127. The Court recalls its position in Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania where it held that domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of a particular piece of evidence. As an international human rights court, the Court cannot usurp this role from the domestic courts and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings.60 128. Having noted that, the Court also highlights its position that while it does not have the power to evaluate matters of evidence that were settled in national courts, it is vested with jurisdiction to determine whether the assessment of the evidence in the national courts complies with relevant provisions of international human rights instruments.61 129. The Court further notes that upholding the right to a fair trial “requires that the imposition of a sentence in a criminal offence, and in particular, a heavy prison sentence, should be based on strong and credible evidence”. 62 As this Court has also held in Diocles William v. United Republic of Tanzania, the principle that a criminal conviction should be “established with certitude” is a crucial principle in cases where the death penalty is imposed.63 Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 65 and James Wanjara & 4 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (25 September 2020) 4 AfCLR 673, § 78. 61 Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48, § 61; Elisamehe v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 66 and Jonas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 69. 62 Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 174; Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 70 and Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 67. 63 Wiliam v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 72. 60 38