74. The Respondent State refutes this allegation and avers that the Court of Appeal considered the identification of the Applicant and held that he was properly identified. The Respondent State further submits that the victim named the Applicant at the earliest possible time to her friend, the Prosecution Witness 2 (PW2) as well as to the police and that this fact carried significant weight given that PW2 was a reliable witness. *** 75. The Court notes that while the Applicant raises an issue of proper identification, his allegation is that the manner in which this issue was examined led to a violation of his rights to non-discrimination, equality before the law and an equal protection of the law and the right to have his cause heard. Noting that the alleged violation relates to the right to a fair trial, the Court will first examine whether the proceedings in the instant case were conducted in accordance with Article 7(1) of the Charter before assessing the alleged violations relating to Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter. 76. This Court has previously stated that when visual or voice identification is used as evidence to convict a person, all circumstances of possible mistakes should be ruled out and the identity of the suspect should be established with certitude. Resultantly, the identification should be corroborated by other circumstantial evidence and must be part of a coherent and consistent account of the scene of the crime.26 77. In the instant case, the Court notes from the record that the prosecution relied on four (4) witnesses to prove its case. According to the judgments of the District Court, High Court and the Court of Appeal,27 the victim, PW1 testified that she was invaded by three (3) people and upon entering the room, they put on the solar light. The judgments of the three (3) domestic 26 Kenedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48, § 64. 27 Republic v. Jackson S/O Godwin, Criminal Case No. 44/2013, supra, pages 25-28; Jackson Godwin v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2014, supra, pages 2-3; and Jackson Godwin v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2015, 16 February 2016, pages 3-5. 18