question the manner in which domestic courts dealt with questions that
arose during trial or appellate processes, especially evidential matters. As
pointed out in Alex Thomas v. Tanzania:30
Though this Court is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of
national courts, this does not preclude it from examining relevant
proceedings in the national courts in order to determine whether they
are in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other
human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned. With regard
to manifest errors in proceedings at national courts, this Court will
examine whether the national courts applied appropriate principles and
international standards in resolving the errors. This is the approach that
has been adopted by similar international courts.
83. The above approach has been consistently confirmed by the Court 31 For
example, in Kijiji Isiaga v. Tanzania, 32 the Court restated its approach as
follows:
The Court underscores 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. However, the
fact that an allegation raises questions relating to the manner in which
evidence was examined by domestic courts does not preclude the
Court from determining whether the domestic procedures fulfilled
international human rights standards.
84. The essence of the above approach is that the Court will, generally, be very
slow to interfere with factual and evidential findings made by domestic
courts except where there is manifest irregularity resulting in a miscarriage
of justice. In the instant Application, the Applicant makes several allegations
the crux of which is that his right to a fair trial was compromised due to the
30
Thomas v. Tanzania, supra, § 130.
See, for example, Jonas v. Tanzania, supra, § 69.
32 (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, §§ 65-66.
31
21