83.The Court recalls its position, that domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of
discretion in evaluating the probative value of evidence. As an international
human rights court, the Court cannot substitute itself for the domestic courts
and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic
proceedings.”°
84.As regards the issue of identification parade, the Court also notes that “it is a
matter of common sense that in criminal proceedings, identification parade is
not necessary and cannot be carried out if witnesses previously knew or saw a
suspect before the identification parade (was conducted). The Court notes that
this is also the practice in the jurisdiction of the Respondent State.”2>
85. The Court has also consistently held in its jurisprudence 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...”.2”
86.In the instant case, the record shows that the domestic courts convicted the
Applicant
on
the
basis
of evidence
from
the
visual
identification
of two
prosecution witnesses, that is, PW2 and PW3, themselves victims of the crime.
These witnesses were with the Applicant in the pick-up vehicle for nearly two
(2)
hours
recognised
identify him.
on
the
road.
the Applicant
According
to the
national
during this time and
In the circumstances,
were
courts,
the witnesses
able to subsequently
the Court holds that the omission
of the
identification parade does not constitute a miscarriage of justice, and therefore
is not a violation to the Applicant's right to a fair trial.
Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 218, §65; Armand Guehi v. United
Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations), §-§ 107-108.
28Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2017)
2 AFCLR 68, § 86.
27Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits), §174; Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (merits
and reparations), §105.
25