63.For the above reasons, the Court finds that the Applicant’s claim is unfounded and is consequently, dismissed. iii. Alleged defective charge sheet 64. The Applicant alleges that the charge sheet was defective, it was at variance with the evidence prosecutor. The and was neither stamped Respondent State nor signed disputes this by the allegation public without substantiation. eK 65.The Court notes assessment that the main issue for determination of the prosecution’s evidence is whether the against the Applicant complied with the international standards required by Article 7(1) of the Charter, which provides that “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard’. The Court considers that such a determination falls within the competence of the domestic courts when they examine the various pieces of evidence that constitute proof of commission of an offence. The Court's intervention will only be necessary where there are irregularities in the domestic courts’ determination resulting in a miscarriage of justice."” 66. The Court notes that the High Court found the admission of PF3 into the evidence was irregular because it contravened the procedure provided under Section 240 (3) of the CPA but that this irregularity was not fatal to the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, the Court notes that as already stated in paragraphs 61 and 62 of this judgment, the Court of Appeal also found that these irregularities did not have any adverse impact on the prosecution’s case given that the main testimony to prove the case came from the victim herself. 17 Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 287, § 89. 18