The Court underscores 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. However, the fact that an allegation raises questions relating to the manner in which evidence was examined by domestic courts does not preclude the Court from determining whether the domestic procedures fulfilled international human rights standards. 96. The essence of the above approach is that the Court will, generally, be slow to interfere with factual and evidential findings made by domestic courts except where there is manifest irregularity resulting in a miscarriage of justice. In the present matter, the Applicants make several allegations the crux of which is that their right to a fair trial was compromised due to the manner in which the proceedings before the High Court and the Court of Appeal were conducted. The Court will, below, address each of the allegations made by the Applicants. i. Lack of corroboration for the Applicants’ caution statements 97. The Applicants submit that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal “erred in law and fact when they failed to consider that the alleged applicants caution statements were never corroborated despite having relied on them as basis for convicting and upholding the applicants’ convictions.” * 98. The Respondent State submits that the Applicants’ allegations lack merit and should be dismissed. In support of its submissions, it points out that Exhibit P10 “was admitted without any objection at the trial court as noted by the Court of Appeal at page 7 of its judgment. The trial court found that that the makers of the confession statement were speaking nothing but the 26