47. In the instant case, the Applicant alleges that the procedure in the District Court in relation to the consideration of evidence was not proper. As a result, according to him, his conviction was tainted with injustice. 48. The Court reiterates its position in Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania that: … domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of a particular evidence, and as an international court, this court cannot take up this role from the domestic courts and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings.15 49. Moreover, the Court restates its case-law that: As regards, in particular, the evidence relied on in convicting the Applicant, the Court holds that, it was indeed not incumbent on 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 Article 7 of the Charter in particular.16 50. The above notwithstanding, the Court can evaluate whether the manner in which domestic proceedings were conducted, including the assessment of evidence, was done in consonance with international human rights standards. 51. From the record, the District Court exhaustively considered the evidence presented in the Applicant’s case, including the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence tendered in relation to the stolen goods; and this was upheld by the High Court and the Court of Appeal.17 The Court further notes 15 Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 65. Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 26 and 173. See also Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits) supra, § 66. 17 Shabani Menge and Thobias Charles v. Republic, Judgment of the District Court, pages 2-12. 16 12