courts are consistent with the international standards established by the Charter or other applicable human rights instruments. 3 26. 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. It 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. 27. As the European Court of Human Rights noted especially in the Matter of Sarp Kuray v. Turkey: " ... the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for domestic law and rules ... in principle it is for national courts to assess the evidence before them. The mission entrusted to the Court by the Convention is not to rule on the question as to whether witnesses' statements were properly admitted as evidence, but to determine whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way of presentation of evidence has been fair"4 . 3 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania, Judgment of 20 November 2015, para 130: " Though this Courl is not an appellate body with respect to decision of national courts, . .. this does not preclude it from examining relevant proceedings in the national courts in order to determine whether they are in accordance with standards set out in the Charier or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned. With regard to manifest errors in proceedings at national courts, this courl will examine whether the national courts applied appropriate principles and international standards in resolving the errors. This is the approach that has been adopted by similar international courts ... ". 4 Judgment of 24 July 2012, para 69. See also: ECHR: Dombo Beheer B. V. v. The Netherlands, Judgment of 27 October 1993, para 31: "The Courl cannot substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of national courts. Its task is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, was "fair" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (arl. 6-1)"; Gafgenv. Germay, Judgment of 1 June 2010, para 164: To ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole was fair, there is need to ascertain that the rights of the Defence had been observed. There is need to inquire in particular if the Applicant was afforded the opportunity to challenge the veracity of the evidence and to object to their use. The value of the evidence should also be considered and if the circumstances in which they were obtained creates doubt as to their credibility and correctness; Balta and Demir v. Turkey, Judgment of 23 June 2015, para 36: "The Courl also recalls in this context that the admissibility of evidence belongs to the purview of domestic laws and national courts, and that its only task is to determine whether the procedure was fair"; Sarp Kuray v .. Turkey , Judgment of 24 July 2012, para 69. Matter of Bochan v. Ukraine, Judgment of11 March2015,paras 61 and62. y 12 2 = ::~ ~ 0· . S- cq.