the provisions of the Charter or of any legal instrument of the African Union. The Application is therefore in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules. 42. As a consequence of the foregoing, the Court finds that this Application is admissible. VIII. MERITS 43. The Applicant alleges that his conviction was based on the doctrine of recent possession of the alleged stolen goods but contends that the owner of the goods was never identified during the proceedings of the national courts. 44. Furthermore, according to the Applicant, the boat engine which was allegedly stolen was never produced in Court as an exhibit to be identified by the owner Joel Faustin. He therefore argues that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore his conviction was a violation of his right to a fair trial. *** 45. Article 7(1) of the Charter provides that “[e]very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard …”. 46. This Court has in the past noted “… 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 purport of the right to the presumption of innocence also enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter.”14 14 Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 174; Diocles William v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 426, § 72; Majid Goa alias Vedastus v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (26 September 2019) 3 AfCLR 498, § 72. 11