85. Having noted that, the Court also restates its position in Kenedy Ivan v. Republic of Tanzania that while it does not have the power to evaluate matters of evidence that were settled in national courts, it does have the power to determine whether the assessment of the evidence in the national courts complies with relevant provisions of international human rights instruments.30 86. In the present Application, the judgments of the domestic courts show that all the three courts, that is, the District Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal relied on the evidence of four (4) witnesses and fairly evaluated the said evidence.31 87. Regarding the evidence presented by PW1, all the three domestic courts held that the victim significantly named the Applicant at the earliest possible time to her friend PW2 as well as to the police and that she was a reliable witness. Regarding the evidence of the other three (3) witnesses, all three courts held that the evidence considered was enough and substantial to make the conviction stand.32 In any event, while examining the Applicant’s claim on identification, this Court has earlier concluded that the Applicant’s identification in the proceedings did not lead to any breach of procedural rights. 88. The Court takes note of the other factors that were mentioned by the Applicant which he claims should have been taken into account by domestic courts in the assessment of the evidence before them. In respect to the said issues, the Court notes that both the High Court and Court of Appeal examined the submissions and evidence before them and held that there was no material contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution. Having done so, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal highlighted, in their 30 Ivan v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 61; and Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 26 and 173. 31 Republic v. Jackson S/O Godwin, Criminal Case No. 44/2013, supra, pages 26-34; 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, supra, pages 1-3. 32 Ibid. 21