59. The record, further, shows that the Applicant raised the same objection he puts before this Court as one among the grounds of appeal before the High Court, and that the High Court took time to consider and ascertain the evidence of the victim and the other five prosecution witnesses and was convinced by the victim’s testimony and by the prosecution witnesses, in particular those of PW3 and PW6.22 60. The Court also notes that further on appeal, the Court of Appeal assessed and confirmed the credibility of the evidence of PW1, notwithstanding the absence of medical evidence, and found that the charge of rape was proved against the Applicant beyond reasonable doubt.23 61. Accordingly, the Court considers that the manner in which the proceedings before the domestic courts were conducted revealed no manifest errors requiring this Court’s intervention. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicant’s allegation and holds that the Respondent State has not violated his right to be heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. ii. Allegation relating to non-consideration of the evidence in the defence of the Applicant 62. The Applicant faults the Respondent State for not considering the evidence in his defence, especially his claim that at the time of his arrest he was treated inhumanely and tortured. * 63. The Respondent State submits that the Court of Appeal duly considered the evidence and was satisfied that the offence of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and, further submits that, the Applicant was duly accorded respect of all of his rights. 22 Ibid. Edison Simon Mwombeki v. Republic, Court of Appeal of Tanzania, at Mwanza, Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2016, Judgment of 18 October 2016, page 15 – 17. 23 16