48. The Court has previously held 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. That is the significance of the right to the presumption of innocence also enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter.”15 49. In the instant case, the Applicant alleges that the procedures before domestic courts, especially the assessment of the evidence in his case, tainted his conviction. He contends that his sentence constituted a denial of justice. 50. The Court reiterates its position in Kijiji Isiaga v. Tanzania that: …domestic Courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of a particular evidence, and as an international human rights Court, this Court cannot take up this role from the domestic Courts and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings.16 51. Furthermore, the Court has consistently held that: As regards, in particular, the evidence relied on in convicting the Applicant, the Court holds that, in was indeed not incumbent upon it to decide on their value for the purposes of reviewing the said conviction. It is however of the opinion that, nothing prevents it from examining such evidence as part of the evidence laid before it so as to ascertain in general, whether consideration of the said evidence by the national judge was in conformity with the requirements of fair trial within the meaning of the article of the Charter referred to.17 15 Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 174; Diocles William v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 426, § 72. 16 Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 65. 17 Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 26 and 173. 12