witness PW3, who is the uncle of the victim, as among the people she claims she ran to after the rape, neither was any medical report tendered to corroborate the allegation. * 50. On its part, the Respondent State submits that it proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court of Appeal, which duly considered the evidence. Furthermore, the Respondent State notes that the Court of Appeal held with regard to the Applicant’s application for review: “In view of what has traversed above, we are of the settled position that, the applicant in this application has failed to sufficiently demonstrate before us that, there is any error apparent on the face of the record that calls for us to review. Consequently, we are constrained to dismiss the application for want of merit.”17 51. The Respondent States submits that the Applicant was duly accorded all of his rights. *** 52. Article 7(1) provides that “[e]very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard.” 53. The Court has previously held 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.18 17 Edison Simon Mwombeki v. Republic, Court of Appeal of Tanzania, at Mwanza, Criminal Application No. 6/08 of 2017, Judgment of 9 July 2018, page 8. 18 Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 65. 14