95. The Respondent State, therefore, submits that the allegation lacks merit and should duly be dismissed. *** 96. The Court recalls its consideration that domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of particular evidence. 97. The Court further notes from the record that the Court of Appeal exhaustively considered the ground presented in the Applicant’s case and demonstrated that the Applicant was not denied the opportunity to know the contents of Exhibit 1 and 2, especially considering that the two exhibits and their contents were the subject of detailed engagement during the trial proceedings. 98. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicant’s allegation and finds that the Respondent State did not violate his right to be heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. iv. Allegation relating to the visual identification 99. The Applicant submits that his right to have his cause heard was violated because the court relied on uncorroborated, unreliable and inappropriate evidence based primarily on a testimony of one eyewitness, one Veronica John (PW1), who made the identification in the evening with limited visibility and after being traumatized by the accident. 100. The Applicant also asserts that the Respondent State failed to produce the murder weapon or any evidence of the Applicant’s alleged intent to murder, as the proceedings in court reveals that the Applicant did not bear the deceased and the witness any grudge, nor was he party to the land dispute between his own sisters and the deceased. 101. The Applicant further notes that a number of discrepancies rendered the witness untrustworthy, including the words allegedly spoken by the 25