assessment of the evidence in the national courts complied with relevant provisions of international human rights instruments.45 118. The Court notes that upholding the right to 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”. 46 As this Court has also held in Diocles William v. United Republic of Tanzania, the principle that a criminal conviction should be “established with certitude” is a crucial principle in cases where the death penalty is imposed.47 119. On the Applicant’s allegation that the only piece of evidence linking him to the crime was the deceased’s wife statement where she claimed that his cuts were injuries he sustained in an altercation with the deceased, the Court notes from the record before it that the prosecution relied on five (5) witnesses to prove its case. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of recent possession, and the domestic courts held that the evidence was enough and substantial to make the conviction stand. According to the judgments of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, PW1 first gave the description of the bicycle in issue on 10 July 2004 and four (4) days later he gave the same description for the second time and subsequently gave the same description for the third time when he appeared at the trial court. This, as the domestic courts found, was sufficient evidence to prove that the bicycle which was the subject matter in the case was the property of the deceased.48 120. The domestic courts also relied on the evidence of PW2 who told the trial court that the description of the bicycle in issue was given to them by PW1 before the bicycle was recovered and that when he enquired from the 45 Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48, § 61; Elisamehe v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 66 and Jonas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 69. 46 Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 174; Juma v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 70 and Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 67. 47 Wiliam v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 72. 48 The Republic v. Nzigiyimana S/O Zabron, Criminal Sessions Case No. 20 of 2008, Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at Tabora, 25 June 2012, pages 81-82 and Nzigiyimana S/O Zabron v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2013, Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Tabora, 25 September 2013, pages 11-12. 33