principally relied on the testimony of PW1 (the deceased’s daughter), who was at the scene of the crime when her mother was killed by the Applicant. The other two witnesses were the police investigator (PW2) and the son of the deceased and brother of the first witness, who was identified in the records as the third Prosecution Witness (PW3). 71. The Court notes that the national courts assessed the circumstances in which the crime was committed and considered the arguments of both the State and the Applicant, who was duly represented by counsel, in order to eliminate possible errors as to the identity of the perpetrator of the murder. 72. Furthermore, the domestic courts also examined the Applicant’s defence of alibi and dismissed it as the Applicant did not specify the particularities of his defence and did not wish to call a witness in support of his defence. 73. The Court finds, therefore, that the manner in which the domestic courts evaluated the evidence leading to the Applicant’s conviction does not disclose any manifest error or miscarriage of justice to the detriment of the Applicant.17 74. On the denial of the request for extension of time to file an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Court observes that the Applicant concedes in his Application that the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in his presence and that he was represented by a lawyer. Having been aware of the content of the judgment, the Applicant could thus have been able to institute his notice of motion for review within the deadline specified in the domestic law. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Applicant’s failure to comply with the time limit for filing the application for the review was due to lack of diligence on his part. 75. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the assessment of the evidence by the national courts was carried out in a proper manner and that, 17 Isiaga v. Tanzania, ibid, § 73; Werema and Another v. Tanzania, ibid, § 63.