114. Regarding the Applicant’s allegations, the Respondent State avers that the Applicant’s conviction was upheld based on the doctrine of recent possession as illustrated by the Court of Appeal’s judgment. The Court of Appeal, the Respondent State argues, sustained the conviction upon finding that the trial court properly applied the doctrine. It is the Respondent State’s submission that in the case at hand, as the Court of Appeal judgment reveals, it was the Applicant who led the police to where the stolen items were located and their owner PW1 correctly identified them while in the possession of the Applicant. The Respondent State concludes that given that domestic courts conclusively determined evidential matters properly, having proved the case against the Applicant beyond reasonable doubt, the Applicant’s allegations lack merit and should be dismissed. *** 115. 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. 116. 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 evidence. As an international human rights court, the Court cannot take up this role from the domestic courts and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings.44 117. Having noted that, the Court also recalls its position that while it does not have the power to evaluate matters of evidence that were settled in national courts, it is nevertheless vested with jurisdiction to determine whether the Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 65 and Wanjara & 4 ors v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (25 September 2020) 4 AfCLR 673, § 78. 44 32