Appeal also upheld this verdict on appeal after a meticulous consideration of all the grounds of appeal and the intricacies relating to the case. 87. Concerning the Applicant’s contention that his confession should have been discarded as it was given while he was suffering from serious physical pain and psychological distress and without a lawyer, it is pertinent to underscore that this contention essentially revolves around the voluntariness of the confession, a matter conclusively determined by the High Court. 88. As for the absence of a lawyer during the confession, the Applicant did not raise this issue before the domestic courts. In any case, the Court notes that while the Applicant had the right to be informed of the right to consult a lawyer from the moment of his arrest and detention, he has not claimed that this was not the case. The crux of the Applicant’s contention is rather limited to the validity of the confession, which he claims was provided without the presence of a lawyer. In this regard, the Court wishes to emphasise that the lack of legal representation or absence of a lawyer during a confession does not automatically render the confession invalid, as long as it was given voluntarily. The Applicant’s contention in this regard, therefore, lacks merit. 89. Overall, the Court does not see any manifest error or anomaly in the domestic court’s assessment of the evidence relied upon to convict the Applicant, in order to warrant its intervention. In fact, the Court reiterates its established position 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.23 The Court cannot assume the role of the domestic courts and investigate the details and particulars of evidence used in domestic proceedings.24 90. In view of the above, the Court dismisses this aspect of the Applicant’s allegation. 23 24 Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 65. Ibid. 23