that the propriety of the admission of Exhibit EP7 was carefully considered by the Court of Appeal before being allowed to stand. 90. The Respondent State submits further that ample proof was presented before domestic courts proving the death of the Henry Mwakajila and also of the complicity of the Applicant in the death. *** 91. The dictates of a fair trial require that the imposition of a sentence in a criminal trial and in particular a heavy sentence, should be based on strong and credible evidence.33 92. In the instant case, the record shows that the High Court convicted the accused, partly, based on the DNA evidence. The findings of the High Court on this point were reviewed by the Court of Appeal in affirming his conviction and sentence. Notably, the person who conducted the DNA analysis was called as a witness for the prosecution (PW 14) before the High Court and the Applicant, and his co-appellants, were accorded opportunity to cross examine her. The Court also notes that domestic courts were aware that the evidence against the Applicant was circumstantial and needed to be treated with the appropriate circumspection. 93. In the circumstances, the Court finds that the evidence relied on to convict the Applicant has not been impeached. Further, and as noted by the Court of Appeal, once it was established that the Applicant was found with human body parts belonging to a missing person, the Applicant ought to have explained how he came to be in possession of those parts. It was in part, due to the Applicant’s failure to explain his possession of the body parts belonging to the deceased that he was convicted. 33 Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599, § 174. 23