requirements under section 293(1) of the CPA that the trial Court must record that the prosecution case is marked closed, though we think it is good practice to indicate as such. At any rate, the omission did not occasion any injustice to the appellant because the trial was carried to its conclusion and the appellant defended himself. Save for the remark we have made, this ground too is baseless and we dismiss it. 70. The Respondent State also refers to the record of the trial court proceedings, where it was recorded on 15 June 2015 by the trial court: I am satisfied that the prosecution case has made out prima facie case which requires the accused to give defence. 71. The Respondent State, therefore, concludes that the Applicant’s allegation lacks merit and should be dismissed. *** 72. Article 7(1) provides that “[e]very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard.” 73. 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.25 74. The above notwithstanding, the Court can, in evaluating the manner in which domestic proceedings were conducted, intervene to assess whether domestic proceedings, including the conduct of proceedings as well as the 25 Isiaga v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 65. 20