00093,t 49.The Respondent State refutes all the allegations raised by the Applicant as baseless. lt states that the Applicant was properly identified especially because the witnesses knew the Applicant before the commission of the crime and they had a good look at him at the sc,ene of the crime. 50. The Respondent State contends that one of the prosecution witness was the Applicant's uncle as well as brother in law to the victim; they both knew him well and thus easily identified him as the perpetrator. lt further avers that the evidence proffered by the prosecution witnesses was sound and corroborative. 51 . Article 7 of the Charter provides that: "Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: 1. The right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force; 2. The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; 3. 4. The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; The right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal." 52.The Court reiterates its established position that ". .. domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of a particular evidence, and as an international court, this court cannot take up this role from the domestic courts and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings."ll rrApplication No. 032/2015. Judgment ol 2110312018 (Merits), Kijiji lsiaga v United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred lo as " Kijiii lsiaga v Tanzania (Merits)'), $ 65. Oscar Josiah v Tanzania (Merits) $ 52. L4 () \