and in particular, a heavy prison sentence, should be based on strong and credible evidence”. 25 81. On the issue of visual identification, the Court recalls its position in a similar case against the Respondent State that: (…) when visual identification is used as a source of evidence to convict a person, all circumstances of possible mistakes should be ruled out and the identity of the suspect should be established with certainty. This is also the accepted principle in the Tanzanian jurisprudence. In addition, the evidence of visual identification must demonstrate a coherent and consistent account of the scene of the crime.26 82. The Court has also previously stated 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.27 The Court has thus consistently affirmed that it cannot assume the role of the domestic courts and investigate the details and particulars of evidence used in domestic proceedings.28 83. In the instant case, the record shows that the domestic courts convicted the Applicants on the basis of evidence tendered by five (5) prosecution witnesses, four (4) of whom were present at the scene of the crime. The statements made by these witnesses were generally similar and revealed a consistent account of the crime scene. In addition, there were three (3) exhibits adduced by the prosecution, including medical reports from the Hospital, although two of them were later expunged from record by the High Court, as they were obtained without full compliance with domestic laws. 25 Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 174; Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 67. 26 Werema v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 60. 27 Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 65. 28 Ibid. 22