obtained. He alleges that the evidence was obtained through violation of provisions of statutory law, the Constitution of the Republic of Malawi and the principle of the rule of law. It is the Applicant’s contention that these actions violated Article 7(1) of the Charter read together with Article 4(1) of the ACDEG, Article 8 of the UDHR, Article 14(1) of the ICCPR and Part A, Article 2(h) of the Fair Trial Guidelines. 52. The Respondent State did not file any response. *** 53. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Charter, as well as the above cited provision are to the effect that every individual has the right to have their cause heard. 54. The Court recalls that, as it has held in Mohammed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania,10 a fair trial requires that where a person faces a heavy prison sentence, the finding that he or she is guilty, must be based on strong and credible evidence. 55. The Court however recalls 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.11 The rationale of such intervention 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.12 56. The Court notes that in the present Application, the Applicant avers that his conviction by the High Court and the upholding of the same by the MSCA 10 Ibid, § 174. See Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), §§ 26, 173; Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), §§ 105111; and Werema and Another v. Tanzania (merits), §§ 59-64. 12 Abubakari v. Tanzania §§ 26 and 173. 11 14