'Sound cannon' case resurfaces in Serbia

The Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade is intensifying its focus on the alleged use of a "sound cannon" during a protest on March 15, 2025. Authorities now frame the incident as part of a broader conspiracy aimed at destabilizing the constitutional order, a stance criticized by legal experts.

“

The Higher Public Prosecutor's Office is stretching the institute of 'founded suspicion' to its limits.

Despite the ongoing investigation into the event itself, authorities have begun summoning citizens for informational interviews and conducting searches. Military analyst Aleksandar Radić had his apartment searched, and Beta news agency editor Vojkan Kostić was detained, reportedly because he possessed Radić's phone. Radić had previously claimed on television that a sound cannon was used during the protest.

Dejan Petar Zlatanović, owner of the Srbin info portal, was also questioned after posting on social media that President Vučić used a sound cannon against students. Tabloid media close to the government report that police are also seeking activist Bojan Simišić and others. Lawyer Marko Pantić, not involved in the case, believes the prosecutor's office is stretching the concept of "founded suspicion" to its limits.

“

That the prosecutor's office is now dealing with these individuals is a legal absurdity, regardless of whether a sound cannon was actually used on March 15 or if something else happened.

Legal expert Vladica Ilić from the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights calls the prosecutor's actions a "legal absurdity." He argues that for a claim about a sound cannon to be legally relevant, the person making it must knowingly spread falsehoods with the intent to undermine the constitutional order. Without these elements, any error is merely an opinion, not a criminal matter. Ilić finds it particularly unusual that the prosecutor's office is proceeding as if the non-existence of a sound cannon is definitively established, given that a pre-investigation launched last year to clarify the events of March 15 remains incomplete after hearing hundreds of witnesses.

“

For a claim about the use of a sound cannon to be criminally relevant, the person must be aware they are stating an untruth and intend to undermine the constitutional order. Without these elements – any mistake is an opinion and not legally relevant.

The issue resurfaced after the prosecutor's office announced the discovery of a document at the Faculty of Philosophy mentioning a "sound cannon" in connection with student plenum activities. This document was presented on Serbian state television in a reconstruction of the March 15 events that aligns with the prosecution's narrative.

“

Therefore, the question arises as to how the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office can now act as if it has been unequivocally established that there was no sound cannon.