66. In relation to the second claim, the Respondent State reiterates that the Applicant made the self-incriminating statement voluntarily as confirmed by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Further, the Applicant did not report any incident of torture to the justice of peace, who recorded his statement. *** 67. Article 7(1) of the Charter stipulates that “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard.” 68. The Court recalls its case-law that since it is not an appellate court “as a matter of principle, it is up to national courts to decide on the probative value of a particular piece of evidence.”24 It is empowered to assess how national court evaluated such evidence as against international human rights instruments.25 Notably, among the guarantees of the right to a fair trial is that a harsh prison sentence following a conviction of a certain criminal offence should be based on strong and credible evidence. 26 The Court will consider, in turn, the two grounds related to the issue of evidence that the Applicant raises. i. On the High Court’s admission of the self-incriminating statement into evidence 69. The Court observes from the records that the crux of the Applicant’s defence at the High Court and the only ground of appeal before the Court of Appeal was the admission of the extra-judicial statement into evidence. This Court therefore has to assess whether the national courts’ admission of this evidence was in compliance with the Applicant’s right to be heard under Article 7(1) of the Charter. 24 Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 65. Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), § 173. 26 Ibid, § 174. 25 19