102. The Respondent State disputes the allegation by the Applicant and claims that the Court of Appeal carefully evaluated and examined all the grounds of appeal and evidence on record. The Respondent State asserts that the Court of Appeal rightfully found that the Applicant had not raised any good ground upon which it could fault the findings of facts of the prior courts, and that the identification evidence given by PW1 and PW2 sufficiently and without doubt links the Applicant to be one of the armed robbers who raided the residence of PW1. *** 103. The Court has previously held that: … domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of a particular evidence. As an international human rights court, the Court cannot take up this role from the domestic courts and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings.32 104. The above notwithstanding, the Court can, in evaluating the manner in which domestic proceedings were conducted, intervene to assess whether domestic proceedings, including the assessment of the evidence, was done in consonance with international human rights standards. 105. The record before this Court shows that the Court of Appeal exhaustively considered the evidence presented in the Applicant’s case. The Court further considers that the Applicant failed to demonstrate and prove that the manner in which the Court of Appeal evaluated evidence revealed manifest errors requiring this Court’s intervention. 106. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicant’s allegation and finds that the Respondent State has not violated his right to be heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. 32 Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 65. 25