66. Addressing the claim of the family feud between the victim and Applicants family, the Respondent State avers that this was a mere afterthought by the Applicant and that if such a feud actually existed, then the Applicant had the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and victim’s mother on this issue, which he did not do. The Respondent State concludes that the charge was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and in accordance with the established standard of proof for the criminal proceeding in the Respondent State. Thus, the allegation that the matter was decided basing on one party’s evidence is meritless and should be dismissed by this Court. *** 67. The Court observes that the relevant Article relating to the violation alleged by Applicant is Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter provides that: 1. Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: … (c) the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice… 68. The Court recalls its jurisprudence in the matter of Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania, where it held that a fair trial requires that where a person faces a heavy prison sentence, the determination of guilt and the conviction must be based on strong and credible evidence.26 69. Furthermore, domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of particular evidence. It follows that as an international human rights court, this Court cannot take up this role from the domestic courts and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings.27 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 26 27 Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 191-192. Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania, (merits) (25 June 2021) 2 AFCLR 218, § 65. 19