ii. Allegation that the Applicant’s conviction was against the weight of the evidence on record 81. The Applicant alleges that the domestic courts relied upon fabricated, contradictory, inadequate and devoid prosecution evidence to uphold his conviction. He avers that the domestic courts ignored crucial facts including that he was not found with any stolen items; the prosecution failed to bring a witness to give corroborative evidence; PW4 gave hearsay evidence when cross examined; and that evidence of PW4 contradicted evidence of PW3. 82. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant’s allegation in this regard has no merit; and avers that the conviction of the Applicant was based on the evidence of identification and that it is clear from the evidence on the record that the Applicant was properly identified. It is also the Respondent State’s contention that the Court of Appeal assessed all matters of fact and law and dismissed the Applicant’s appeal in its entirety for lack of merit. *** 83. The Court notes that while the Applicant raises an issue relating to evidence in the proceedings before domestic courts, the basis of his allegation is that the manner in which issues of evidence were examined led to a violation of his rights to non-discrimination, equality before the law, equal protection of the law and the right to have one’s cause heard. 84. The Court reiterates its position as held in Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania29 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 and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings. 29 Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 65. 20