000t8I 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 Article 7 of the Charter in particular."l2 67. ln this regard, the Court observes that "a fair trial requires that the imposition of a sentence in a criminal offence, and in particular, a heavy prison sentence, should be based on strong and credible evidence,,.13 68. The Court also notes that when visual 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. This is also the accepted principle in the Tanzanian jurisprudence.ra This demands that visual identification should be corroborated by other circumstantial evidence and must be part of a coherent and consistent account of the scene of the crime. 69. 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 three Prosecution Witnesses, who were victims of the crimes. These witnesses knew the Applicant before the commission of the crimes, since he used to come to his uncle's house, who was the Applicant's co-accused. The national courts thoroughly assessed the circumstances in which the crime was committed to eliminate possible mistaken identity and found that the Applicant and his co-accused were positively identified as having committed the alleged crimes. 70. The court also observes that in addition to the victims, testimony on the Applicant's and his co-accused's identity, the national courts also considered the testimony of other Prosecution witnesses, namely, that of Mr. yusuf Bwiru and Commander Anthony Michack. The national courts also relied on exhibits collected 12 't Mohamed Abubakari judgment, paras.26, and 173 rbid , pa'a. 174 ''rnt he Mafter of Waziri Amani v. United Republic of Tanzania, the Court of Appeal declared that ,,no court should act on evidence of visual iden tifi cation unless all possibilities of mistaken identi ty are eliminated and the court is ful ly satisfied that the evidence before it absolutely watertight"lbid, para 175 t7 a, \__..-- (