Nichols had argued that as per the 1989 Extradition Act, the English translation of the evidence submitted was not admissible since it was not the ``original'' evidence which was given in either Hindi or Marathi. Pratt ruled the evidence was admissible and stressed that the requirements of depositions in English courts and those in Indian courts were ``no different.'' He added that, in fact, the depositions from the Indian court ``give more information.''