'000?99 investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings."l3 63. On the evidence used to convict the Applicant, the Court restates its position in the matter of Mohamed Abubakariv. Tanzania, thal: "As regards, in particular, the evidence relied on in convicting the Applicant, the Court holds that, it was indeed not incumbent on it to decide on their value for the purposes of reviewing the said conviction. lt is however of the opinion that, nothing prevents it from examining such evidence as part of the evidence laid before it so as to ascertain in general, whether consideration of the said evidence by the national Judge was in conformig with the requirements of fair trial within the meaning of Article 7 of the Charter in particulsl."ta 64. Further, the Court has previously stated 15 that when visual or voice identification is used as evidence to convict a person, all circumstances of possible mistakes should be ruled out and the identity of the suspect should be established with certitude. This demands that the identification should be corroborated by other circumstantial evidence and must be part of a coherent and consistent account of the scene of the crime. 65. ln the instant case, the record before this Court shows that the national courts convicted the Applicant on the basis of evidence of visual identification tendered by three (3) Prosecution Witnesses, who were at the scene of the crime. These witnesses knew the Applicant before the commission of the crime, since they were neighbours. The national courts assessed the circumstances in which the crime was commifted, to eliminate possible mistaken identity and 13 Application No. 032/2015. Judgment ol 2110312018 (Merits), Kijiji lsiaga v united Repubtic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred lo as"Kijiji lsiaga v Tanzania (Merits)"), g 65. la Mohammed Abubakari v. Tanzania (Merits), op c,1., SS 26 and'173. See also Kijiji tsiaga v. Tanzania (Merits), op. crl., $ 66 15 lbid. 16