and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings.23 89. The above notwithstanding, the Court can evaluate whether the manner in which domestic proceedings were conducted, including the conduct of proceedings as well as the assessment of the evidence, was done in consonance with international human rights standards.24 90. It emerges from the record that, subsequent to an objection by Counsel for the Applicant, the trial court conducted a trial within a trial.25 Those proceedings were aimed at considering the objection raised by the Applicant to the Prosecution’s reliance on his extra-judicial statement which, he averred, was obtained under torture.26 After hearing both parties, and after a thorough examination of their submissions, as well as of related facts, the High Court dismissed the Applicant’s objection upon finding that the Applicant made the statement freely and voluntarily and that his statement was nothing but the truth.27 91. This Court further notes that the Court of Appeal equally considered whether the trial court properly admitted the Applicant’s extra-judicial statement and held that the High Court could not be faulted for deciding as it did. 28 The Court of Appeal, therefore, dismissed the Applicant’s appeal on that single ground.29 92. Considering the foregoing, it cannot be said that the domestic courts of the Respondent State ignored the Applicant’s objection or failed to consider the propriety of his extra-judicial statement in arriving at his conviction. The claim is therefore unfounded. 23 Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 65. Ibid, § 66. 25 See The Republic v. Deogratias Nicholaus Jeshi, Josephat Mkwano, and Audax Felician, Criminal Session No. 113/2004, Ruling of 22 June 2010. 26 Ibid, pages 1-2. 27 Ibid, pages 3-8. 28 See Deogratias Nicholaus and Joseph Mukwano v. The Republic, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Mwanza, Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2010, Judgment of 7 March 2012, pages 14-17. 29 Ibid, page 18. 24 21