54. The above notwithstanding, the Court can, in evaluating the manner in which domestic proceedings were conducted, intervene to assess whether domestic proceedings, including the conduct of proceedings as well as the assessment of the evidence, was done in consonance with international human rights standards. 55. In the instant case, the Applicant is alleging that his conviction was based on a single witness testimony, and, that the victim’s testimony was not credible. 56. The Court reiterates, that in criminal proceedings the conviction of individuals for a crime shall be with certitude, and that “…fair trial requires the imposition of a sentence in a criminal offence, and in particular a heavy prison sentence, shall be based on a strong and credible evidence. That is the purport of the right to the presumption of innocence also enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter”.19 57. On the matter that conviction was based on a single witness testimony, the Court recalls its previous position that a “judge should in principle not convict on the basis of a single witness, but he may exceptionally do so only if all the possibilities of mistaken identity are eliminated and unless the testimony is absolutely unassailable.”20 58. The Court observes from the record that when the trial was conducted, six prosecution witnesses were summoned to prove the case. Five prosecution witnesses, that is, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6, were presented with a view of corroborating the victim’s (PW1) allegation and the judgment was reached on the basis of such evidence of the victim and the other prosecution witnesses.21 19 Mohamed Aboubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599, §174 Ibid, § 175. 21 Edison Simon Mwombeki v. Republic, High Court of Tanzania, at Mwanza, Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 2015, Judgement of 14 December 2015, page 13. 20 15