00093 3 53. Moreover, the Court restates its position with regards to evidence relied upon to convict an Applicant, that: "As regards, in particular, the evidence relied on in convicting the Applicant, the Court holds that, it was indeed not incumbent on it to decide on their value for the purposes of reviewing the said conviction. lt is however of the opinion that, nothing prevents it from examining such evidence as part of the evidence laid before it so as to ascertain in general, whether consideration of the said evidence by the national Judge was in conformity with the requirements of fair trial within the meaning of A(icle 7 of the Charter in particular.'12 54. The Court notes that when visual or voice identification is used as evidence to convict a person, all circumstances of possible mistakes should be ruled out and the identity of the suspect should be established with certitude.13This demands that the identification should be corroborated by other circumstantial evidence and must be part of a coherent and consistent account of the scene of the crime. 55. ln the instant case, the record before this Court shows that the domestic courts convicted the Applicant on the basis of evidence of visual identification tendered by four prosecution witnesses. These witnesses rushed to the scene of the crime in response to the cries of the victim. Furthermore, the witnesses knew the Applicant before the commission of the crime, since they were neighbours and some were his relatives. The domestic courts assessed the circumstances in which the crime was committed to eliminate possible mistaken identity and found that the Applicant was properly identified as having committed the alleged crime.la 12 Mohamed Abubakai v. Tanzania (Merits), op cil, S $ 26 and 173. See also Kijiji lsiaga v. Tanzania (Merits) op. ctl , $ 66. Oscar Josla h v Tanzania (Merits) $ 53. 13 Ki1i1i lsiaga v- Tanzania (Merits) op. clt, $ 68, Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (Merits), I 175, Kenedy lvan v Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), $ 64. 1a Kenedy lvan v Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), S 60. 15