00093e 56. ln view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the manner in which the domestic courts evaluated the facts and evidence, and the weight given to them does not disclose any manifest error or miscarriage of justice to the Applicant which requires the Court's interference. The Court therefore dismisses the allegation of the Applicant that the domestic courts failed to consider the inconsistencies in the identification evidence relied upon to convict him. ii. Allegation of failure to consider the defence of alibi 57. The Applicant alleges that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial at the trial court and subsequently at the appellate courts as the domestic courts failed to take into account his defence of alibi. 58. The Respondent State disputes the allegations of the Applicant. According the Respondent State, the trial court reached its verdict after satisfying itself that the Applicant had failed to raise doubt to the prosecution's water-tight proof of evidence. 59. Likewise, the Respondent State contends that the Applicant's defence of alibi was fully considered in the appellate courts but found wanting. 60.The Respondent State concludes in this regard that the Applicant's alleged defence of alibi was "found to be of no evidential value' and was therefore an afterthought which should be disregarded, and for the given reasons, the Application lacks merits and should be duly dismissed. 61. The Court notes that Article 7(1) of the Charter provides that: "Every shall have the right to have his cause heard". 16 u/r" ,/. I individual