Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY so that a period of two months and 16 days thus lapsed. The Court found that the period of two months and 16 days is manifestly reasonable within the meaning of Rule 50(2)(f). Lastly, the Court found that the case had not been previously settled before another international tribunal and was thus in compliance with Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Application was admissible. The Court then considered whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to a fair trial, his right to be tried within reasonable time, his right to dignity and prohibition against torture, degrading and inhuman treatment, and his right to liberty, protected under Articles 7, 7(1)(d), 5 and 6 of the Charter, respectively. The Court observed, however, that the main contention in the Application centred on Article 7(1) of the Charter, the Applicant’s right to have his cause heard, which includes his right to be tried within reasonable time, hence, this alleged violation was addressed first. The Applicant raised two grievances against the domestic courts whose actions or omissions he claims violated his rights. These grievances concern (i) the evidence upon which the conviction was based, and (ii) the duration of the proceedings before the national courts. On the allegation relating to the evidence upon which the conviction was based, the Court recalled its earlier decisions, where it noted that domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of 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 Court can, in evaluating the manner in which domestic proceedings were conducted, intervene to assess whether domestic proceedings, including the assessment of the evidence, were conducted in consonance with international human rights standards. In the instant case, after close examination of the record, the Court noted that the High Court and the Court of Appeal took time to consider, assess and confirm the credibility of the evidence, including in particular the issue of identification by the witnesses, and found that the charges against the Applicant were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court, therefore, considered that the manner in which the proceedings before the domestic courts were conducted, including the consideration of the evidence, revealed no manifest errors or miscarriage of justice requiring its intervention. 4