00093 i 62.This Court has in the past noted "that a fair trial requires that the imposition of a sentence in a criminal offence, and in particular a heavy prison sentence, should be based on strong and credible evidence. That is the purport of the right to the presumption of innocence also enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter."ls 63.The Court recalls its previous decision that "where an alibi is established with certitude, it can be decisive on the determination of guilt of the accused."l6 64.The Court notes that the Applicant's defence of alibi is premised on the fact that he was at Busulwa market selling sugarcane at the material time that the crime was committed. This however, was rebutted by PW1 , a neighbour who on cross-examination stated that the Applicant could not have been at Busulwa market on 19 August 2005 because it was a Friday and thus not a market day. Further, the Applicant did not provide any corroboration for his defence of alibi. Also, the Court notes that there's nothing on record to show that the domestic courts made manifest errors in their judgment which would require its intervention. 65. ln view of the above, the Court dismisses the allegation of the Applicant that the domestic courts failed to consider his defence of alibi and declares that the Applicant's right to a fair trial was not violated. 15 Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (Merits) $ 174; Application No. 016/2016. Judgment ot 2110912018 (Merits and Reparations), Diocles Williams v.United Republic of Tanzan a, S 72. 16 Mohamed Abubakai v Tanzania (Merits), S 191, Application No. 016/2015. Judgment of 2310312018 (Merits), Nguza Viking and Johson Nguza v United Republic of Tanzania, $ 104. L7