After all these are trivial matters to say the least. Thus, we are convinced that PW1 was truthful, believable and reliable witness. This complaint too is baseless. 107. The Court of Appeal also held that: Overall, we find and hold that we have no reasons to fault the finding of the trial court regarding the credibility of Veronica John. In the circumstances the fourth ground too lack merit and we dismiss it. 108. The Respondent State contends that for these reasons, the Applicant’s allegation lacks merits and should be dismissed. *** 109. The record before this Court shows that the Court of Appeal exhaustively considered the evidence presented in the Applicant’s case, in particular as it concerned the credibility of the witness26 and the conditions allowing for identification.27 The Court, therefore, considers that the Applicant fails to demonstrate and prove that the manner in which the domestic courts evaluated evidence revealed manifest errors requiring this Court’s intervention. 110. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicant’s allegation and finds that the Respondent State did not violate his right to be heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. v. Allegation relating to the defence’s evidence 111. The Applicant contends that the trial court failed to accord the deserving weigh to the defence’s case advanced by the Applicant. 26 27 See pages 19-23 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 313/2015). See pages 16-19 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 313/2015). 27