67. The Court notes 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”.13 The nature or form of admissible evidence for purposes of criminal conviction may vary across the different legal traditions but it must always have sufficient weight to establish the culpability of the accused. 68. As far as the use of the visual identification is concerned, the Court recalls its position in Isiaga v. Tanzania that: (…) when visual identification is used as a source of evidence to convict a person, all circumstances of possible mistakes should be ruled out and the identity of the suspect should be established with certainty. This is also the accepted principle in the Tanzanian jurisprudence. In addition, the evidence of visual identification must demonstrate a coherent and consistent account of the scene of the crime.14 69. The Court further recalls that “it is not an appellate court and as a matter of principle, it is up to national courts to decide on the probative value of a particular piece of evidence”.15 Accordingly, the Court “cannot assume the role of the domestic courts and investigate the details and particulars of evidence used in domestic proceedings to establish the criminal culpability of individuals”.16 The Court only intervenes when there is a manifest error in the assessment of the national courts that would result in miscarriage of justice. 70. In the instant case, the records before this Court show that the national courts convicted the Applicant on the basis of evidence of visual identification tendered by three (3) Prosecution Witnesses (PW). The courts 13 Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 599, § 174. Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 68; Werema and Another v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 60. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 14