distance of the observation, the time of observation and the fact that the victims were familiar with the Applicants and their voices. It also points out that the trial court found that the prosecution witnesses were credible and that, over and above the identification evidence, there was corroborating evidence implicating the Applicants. 72. According to the Respondent State, the domestic courts convicted the Applicants after a thorough and appropriate examination of all the evidence. The Respondent State maintains, therefore, that the Court should defer to the finding of the domestic courts in circumstances where duly established procedures laid down by the laws of the land were adhered to. *** 73. The Court further underscores that domestic courts enjoy a margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of evidence presented before them. As an international human rights court, therefore, the Court cannot take this role from the domestic courts.28 74. As the Court has previously observed, 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.29 Specifically in relation to visual identification, the Court has pointed out that when a conviction is based on this type of evidence, all circumstances of possible mistaken identity should be ruled out and the identity of the suspect should be established with certitude. This is also the accepted principle in the Respondent State’s jurisprudence.30 The result is that evidence of visual identification should be corroborated by other circumstantial evidence and must be part of a coherent and consistent account of the crime scene.31 Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 26 and 173. Abubakari v. Tanzania, ibid, § 174. 30 Matter of Waziri Amani v. The Republic (1980) TLR 250. 31 Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 68. 28 29 20