In January, the Public Prosecutor's Office opposed the search of Sidenor without requiring the persons under investigation to submit any documents in advance

Sidenor  opposed the registration of the company's plant in Basauri (Bizkaia) by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the National Court in January  and had not previously requested the persons investigated in this case, including President José Antonio Jainaga , to submit documentation on the sale of steel to an Israeli arms company.

However, Francisco de Jorge , judge of the National High Court and investigator of the case, did not take into account the position of the Public Prosecutor's Office and, finally, on 9 February , authorized the search of the company's headquarters in Basauri.

On the same day, the Public Prosecutor's Office of theNational High Court was notified of the order authorizing the search and did not have time to challenge it. In this regard, it decided tolodge an appeal\u00A0 on the grounds that the search was disproportionate.

The judge is investigating whether Jainaga, also recently appointed president of the Talgo company, and two directors of that company, committed a crime of smuggling and were involved in acrime of genocide and against humanity for complicity in the sale of steel to Israel Military Industries (IMSI), "with full knowledgethatthe material was for the production of weapons " .

The judicial proceedings began in October, with the approval of the Public Prosecutor's Office, after a complaint was admitted by the Association Comunitat Palestina de Catalunya-Terra Santa, which presented itself as a popular accusation representing the campaign to end the arms trade with Israel.

After taking a statement from the persons under investigation in November, De Jorge opened a separate section on 8 January and informed the Public Prosecutor's Office of the appropriateness of registering Sidenor's residence in order to confiscate the documentation relating to the application under investigation and allegedly processed by the company's delegation in London.

The judge does not arguein his order that there is a risk of disappearance of the requested documentation and does not take into account the fact that the three persons under investigation have declared themselves willing to cooperate with the investigation, so he believes that he should have previously offered them the possibilityof voluntarily submitting such documentation, as the Public Prosecutor's Office stated in its report of 12 January.

The Public Prosecutor's Office sees no legal support for the genocide investigation. It further considers that the investigation is being conducted without legal protection in relation to crimes of genocide and against humanity and against persons and property protected in the event of armed conflict.

In addition, the Public Prosecutor's Office has also not brought a complaint against the alleged crimes of genocide, nor has it seen any evidence of genocide, which is a prerequisite for the investigation of such cases under article 23 of the Judicial Authority Organization Act. The Public Prosecutor's Office therefore considers that the investigation of such acts would be limited to the offence of smuggling, and therefore considers the search warrant to be disproportionate.