accused person how he got the bicycle in issue he failed to explain and he did not know what type it was.49 Moreover, according to both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, further important evidence came from PW3 who witnessed the transaction in which the deceased had purchased the bicycle model Avon with serial No. 0538 and identified the sale agreement which was adduced in court as evidence.50 121. With regards to the Applicant’s allegation that the doctrine of recent possession was improperly invoked, this Court notes that the domestic courts confirmed that all the elements supporting the said doctrine were proven namely that the property was found with the accused person, the property was positively identified as belonging to the victim, that the property had been recently stolen from the victim and that the property related to the one on the charge sheet.51 As highlighted earlier in the present Judgment, both the High Court and Court of Appeal satisfied themselves that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 proved that the bicycle in issue belonged to the deceased and had recently been stolen, and that evidence of PW2 proved that the bicycle in question was found with the accused person. 122. This Court also notes that the domestic courts took cognisance of the fact that in relying on the doctrine of recent possession, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution who are required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. The same courts satisfied themselves that the Applicant failed to raise reasonable doubt that the bicycle was ever his hence finding that the doctrine of recent possession was properly invoked.52 This Court consequently finds that the manner in which the domestic courts evaluated 49 The Republic v. Nzigiyimana S/O Zabron, Criminal Sessions Case No. 20 of 2008, ibid, pages 80-83 and Nzigiyimana S/O Zabron v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2013, ibid, pages 13-14. 50 The Republic v. Nzigiyimana S/O Zabron, Criminal Sessions Case No. 20 of 2008, ibid, page 91 and Nzigiyimana S/O Zabron v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2013, ibid, pages 12-13. 51 Ladislaus Onesmo v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 047/2016, Judgment of 30 September 2022 (merits and reparations), § 63. 52 The Republic v. Nzigiyimana S/O Zabron, Criminal Sessions Case No. 20 of 2008, ibid, pages 91-93 and Nzigiyimana S/O Zabron v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2013, ibid, pages 22-23. 34