Update
Auditing the voter register: purpose, impact, and where we a...
CRTA+ Voter register audit: only 4 of 69 checks can be performed under current data access CRTA̵...
Exactly one year after the incident involving the use of a sound cannon at the 15 March student-led protest, the largest protest in Serbian history, civil society organizations once again raise serious concerns that events which endangered the safety and health of thousands of citizens remain without accountability.
In the immediate aftermath of the incident, around 4,000 citizens contacted civil society organisations seeking assistance and reporting the consequences they experienced, despite public threats by the highest government officials that individuals could face prosecution for “spreading panic and disorder,” a criminal offence punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.
In April 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) granted a request for an interim measure and ordered Serbia, until further notice, to prevent any use of sound devices for crowd control. The European Commission, in its November 2025 report on Serbia, stated that there was no credible follow-up by the authorities which denied the use of such devices.
As of 9 March 2026, the case remains unresolved. The competent authorities have yet to provide clear answers about what exactly happened, who authorised and used the device, and under what circumstances it was deployed. The only official response so far has been that a pre-investigative procedure is ongoing, without further clarification or publicly available findings. The continued lack of accountability undermines public trust in institutions and raises broader concerns regarding the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law.
Numerous international actors have called for an independent investigation. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed readiness for his Office to carry out a fact-finding mission into the incidents. We also note the recent UN Special Rapporteur on torture’s call for a proper and thorough investigation, as well as the appeal by six UN Special Rapporteurs for a prompt, impartial, independent, and efficient investigation, and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights’ call for a swift inquiry.
We reiterate the importance of the following steps:
In the immediate aftermath of the incident, around 4,000 citizens contacted civil society organisations seeking assistance and reporting the consequences they experienced, despite public threats by the highest government officials that individuals could face prosecution for “spreading panic and disorder,” a criminal offence punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.
In April 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) granted a request for an interim measure and ordered Serbia, until further notice, to prevent any use of sound devices for crowd control. The European Commission, in its November 2025 report on Serbia, stated that there was no credible follow-up by the authorities which denied the use of such devices.
In April 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) granted a request for an interim measure
As of 9 March 2026, the case remains unresolved. The competent authorities have yet to provide clear answers about what exactly happened, who authorised and used the device, and under what circumstances it was deployed. The only official response so far has been that a pre-investigative procedure is ongoing, without further clarification or publicly available findings. The continued lack of accountability undermines public trust in institutions and raises broader concerns regarding the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law.
Numerous international actors have called for an independent investigation. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed readiness for his Office to carry out a fact-finding mission into the incidents. We also note the recent UN Special Rapporteur on torture’s call for a proper and thorough investigation, as well as the appeal by six UN Special Rapporteurs for a prompt, impartial, independent, and efficient investigation, and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights’ call for a swift inquiry.
We reiterate the importance of the following steps:
Overview
During the 15-minute silent vigil at 19:11 on 15 March 2025 in Belgrade, a sudden loud acoustic event disrupted the silence, causing panic and a stampede among protesters.
An independent investigation conducted by the organisation Earshot analysed audio from 19 videos of the protest, carried out 15 in-depth Earwitness interviews with witnesses, and reviewed more than 3,000 written testimonies from attendees. Based on this evidence, the investigators concluded that there is a high probability that protesters were exposed to a targeted attack using a directional acoustic weapon. Witness accounts were highly consistent, with many describing an unfamiliar sound accompanied by a physical sensation that seemed to “pass through” their bodies.
In the days following the protest, Serbian authorities repeatedly denied possessing or deploying such devices (acoustic weapons i.e., LRAD devices). Only after photographs emerged showing LRAD equipment mounted on police vehicles on the day of the protest did officials acknowledge that the devices existed, while continuing to insist that they had not been used and portraying them primarily as loudspeakers for police communication.
Earshort’s findings contradicted the only official analysis done by Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), publicly presented by the Serbian Security Information Agency which concluded that LRAD-type acoustic devices were not used during the protest and that there are public indications of a staged provocation, involving the participation of a specially prepared group of individuals and the use of smartphones to synchronise movements in order to imitate the effect of an acoustic weapon, as well as the obstruction of emergency medical services.
An independent investigation conducted by the organisation Earshot analysed audio from 19 videos of the protest, carried out 15 in-depth Earwitness interviews with witnesses, and reviewed more than 3,000 written testimonies from attendees. Based on this evidence, the investigators concluded that there is a high probability that protesters were exposed to a targeted attack using a directional acoustic weapon. Witness accounts were highly consistent, with many describing an unfamiliar sound accompanied by a physical sensation that seemed to “pass through” their bodies.
In the days following the protest, Serbian authorities repeatedly denied possessing or deploying such devices (acoustic weapons i.e., LRAD devices). Only after photographs emerged showing LRAD equipment mounted on police vehicles on the day of the protest did officials acknowledge that the devices existed, while continuing to insist that they had not been used and portraying them primarily as loudspeakers for police communication.
Earshort’s findings contradicted the only official analysis done by Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), publicly presented by the Serbian Security Information Agency which concluded that LRAD-type acoustic devices were not used during the protest and that there are public indications of a staged provocation, involving the participation of a specially prepared group of individuals and the use of smartphones to synchronise movements in order to imitate the effect of an acoustic weapon, as well as the obstruction of emergency medical services.
Legal Actions in the Sound Cannon Case
Before Domestic Institutions (First Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office)
The continued pre-investigation status, the absence of a legal qualification of the act, and limited transparency regarding prosecutorial steps raise concerns about the effectiveness and timeliness of the domestic response. These factors undermine public confidence in the ability of domestic institutions to establish the facts, determine responsibility, and ensure accountability for the incident. In addition, recent legislative changes affecting the judicial system (including weakening the prosecution) further raise concerns about the institutional capacity and independence needed to handle this complex and sensitive case. In this context, there is an increasing risk that the case may remain unresolved.
Before International Institutions (European Court of Human Rights)
The Court’s intervention is welcome because it places the issue under international scrutiny and creates an additional layer of legal and political accountability for the Serbian authorities. Compliance with the interim measure and the outcome of the pending application may have broader implications for standards governing the use of force at public assemblies in Serbia and for the protection of fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
