that the judgment of the High Court did not expressly refer to the statement does not mean it was not used against him. 102. The Respondent State disputes these allegations and avers that the murder was well investigated in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Respondent State also claims that the allegations are vague and do not specify what "core evidence" could have been pursued during the investigation. 103. During the public hearing, the Respondent State concurred that the Applicant was convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence but stated that such practice is common in several jurisdictions and deemed as reliable as other types of evidence. 104. With regard to the statement, the Respondent State alleges that the Applicant agreed to and signed the same, which he never challenged during the trial or before the Court of Appeal at which point he was represented by a lawyer. The Respondent State also avers that this claim is immaterial since the statement was never relied on by the trial Judge. -* 105. The Court considers, with respect to whether the investigation was properly conducted regarding evidence relied on, that, as it has held in the case of Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania, " ... the imposition of a sentence in a criminal offence, and in particular a heavy prison sentence, should be based on strong and credible evidence".29 106. The Court is of the view that as long as evidence was properly received and considered, the proceedings and decisions of domestic courts cannot be seen as encroaching upon fair trial rights. In the instant matter, the Applicant's allegation in relation to "core evidence" and "extraneous evidence" was considered by the Court of Appeal and dismissed. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the conviction and sentencing were based on an improper investigation especially where the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 29 Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania, §§ 174, 193 and 194. 27