trial includes the right to a public hearing before a competent, independent and impartial court. 111. The Court considers, as it has consistently held, that upholding the right to have one’s cause heard requires that, in criminal matters, the accused is convicted only upon being clearly proven guilty.35 This requirement applies with even greater relevance where an accused person is at risk of incurring a severe penalty36 and particularly in instances involving the death sentence as is the case in the instant Application. 112. The Court further observes that, while it does not substitute national courts when it comes to assessing the evidence adduced in domestic proceedings, it retains the power to examine whether the manner in which such evidence was considered is compatible with international human rights norms.37 One critical concern in this connection is to ensure that the consideration of facts and evidence by domestic courts was not manifestly arbitrary or did not result in a miscarriage of justice.38 113. In the present case, the Court notes that it has to assess, in view of the alleged inconsistency and lack of credibility of the prosecution witness testimony, the trial court’s reliance on circumstantial evidence to convict the Applicant; the fact that malice aforethought was not proven; and the disregard of the assessors’ finding by the trial judge. It is based on this assessment that the Court will determine whether the guilty verdict and the ensuing sentence are compatible with standards set out earlier. 114. Although the alleged evidentiary issues highlighted by the Applicant relate to the trial before the High Court, the Court observes that the record of 35 Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), §§ 105-111. See also, Werema Wangoko Werema and another v. Tanzania (merits), §§ 59-64; and Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), §§ 174, 193 and 194. 36 See, Oscar Josiah v. Tanzania, (merits) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 83, § 51 and Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 032/2015, Judgment of 25 June 2021 (merits), §§ 78, 79. 37 See, Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), §§ 26, 173; Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), §§ 105-111; and Werema Wangoko Werema and another v. Tanzania (merits), §§ 59-64. 38 See, Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), §§ 26 and 173. 33