83. The Respondent State also notes that the Court of Appeal concluded after evaluating all the evidence that the case against the Applicant was overwhelming. 84. The Respondent State claims that there was sufficient evidence to convict the Applicant during the trial. It maintains that after considering all the exhibits that were admitted in court, and after evaluating the quality of evidence, the assessors, who are not jurists but are representative of the Applicant’s peers in the society, firstly, found that the Applicant was guilty of murder followed by legal reasoning of the trial judge. 85. The Respondent State further argues that the Court of Appeal considered all the evidence raised by the defence counsel on the three grounds of appeal. Specifically, it notes that the Court of Appeal considered those grounds that challenged the extra-judicial statement used to establish common purpose, founding conviction on a statement of a co-accused, and the failure of the Applicant to cross-examine PW 3 regarding the properties found at his residence, and that the Court of Appeal concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict the Applicant for the offence of murder. 86. For these reasons, the Respondent State submits that the allegations by the Applicant have no merit and should be dismissed. *** 87. Article 7(1) provides that “[e]very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard.” 88. The Court has previously held that: … domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of a particular evidence. As an international human rights court, the Court cannot take up this role from the domestic courts 20