95. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that “a fair trial requires that the imposition of a sentence in a criminal offence, and in particular, a heavy prison sentence, should be based on strong and credible evidence”.30 96. The Court also observes 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 recognised principle in the Tanzanian jurisprudence. ln addition, the evidence of visual identification must demonstrate a coherent and consistent account of the crime scene. 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.31 As such, the Court cannot assume this role of the domestic courts and investigate the details and particulars of evidence used in domestic proceedings to establish the criminal culpability of individuals.32 97. Regarding the Applicants’ claim that there were some inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, this Court observes that the Court of Appeal considered the second ground of appeal raised by the Applicant, which was that the trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact when he relied on the P3 form (medical examination form) and the statement of PW5, who is a clinical officer who examined the Applicant and completed the P3 Form on 3 November 2012, while the alleged offence for which he was charged occurred on 4 November 2012.33 The Court further observes that in his oral submissions the prosecutor joined hands with the appellant (Applicant) and admitted that the medical report, P3 Form was wrongly admitted by the trial magistrate and requested the Court to expunge it as part of the evidence. The prosecutor nevertheless observed that there was insurmountable 30 Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 67. lsiaga v. Tanzania, ibid, § 65 and Werema Wangoko Werema and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 520, § 60. 32 Ibid. 33 Court of Appeal Judgment dated 21/09 & 12/10/15, page 3 and 5. 31 26