It rarely happens that a single event remains in the media headlines for several weeks.
That was precisely the destiny of a so-called sonic weapon and an unexplained noise that interrupted a 16-minute silence during one of the largest student protests on 15 March 2025 in Belgrade and forced those gathered to flee.
Great public interest did not help uncover the cause of the panic that swept through the crowd while it was peacefully paying tribute to those who died in the collapse of the canopy at the railway station in Novi Sad.
Government representatives rejected the claims of the opposition and representatives of the student movement that state structures had used a sonic weapon against those gathered.
“This was a premeditated and organised attack on the state with the aim of provoking absolute instability and violently overthrowing the order,” claimed the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić.
The prosecution is still conducting an investigation
The First Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade is the only institution still conducting an investigation into the use of a sonic weapon, after the Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime previously withdrew from the case.
That office had received several criminal complaints for terrorism related to the use of a device that caused panic among those gathered.
“The withdrawal of the Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime and the transfer of the investigation to the lowest prosecutor’s office in the hierarchy diminishes the seriousness of the act and indicates that the investigation will not cover all aspects of the event,” says Vladica Ilić, a lawyer at the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, speaking to the BBC in Serbian.
The sonic weapon case was opened at the First Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office immediately after the protest in Belgrade on 15 March.
It was the largest gathering at which responsibility was demanded for the collapse of the canopy at the railway station in Novi Sad, when 16 people were killed and one woman was seriously injured.
Three days after the gathering, the First Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office announced that a sonic weapon had not been used and that the investigation would continue in order to determine what caused the panic among participants.
According to police estimates, more than 100,000 people attended the gathering, while the organisation Archive of Public Gatherings estimated that between 275,000 and 325,000 people were present at the protest.
The prosecution has so far collected reports from relevant institutions and taken statements from around 170 citizens who reported experiencing certain health problems, according to written responses provided to BBC Serbian.
The prosecution did not respond to additional questions about which institutions provided the reports or what they referred to. They stated that they would announce further steps after “collecting information from all persons”.
“In this case I would expect the seizure of items that could be suspicious – sound devices which it has been established that the Ministry of the Interior possesses, an examination of whether they were used, inspection of video recordings from the warehouses where they were stored, and data from cameras covering the area where such a device was located on the day of the protest,” says Ilić.
“It should also be explained why drone recording of the gathering was prohibited from being used that day. “There are many things missing that we have the right to know,” he adds and goes on to say that it is “very clear that some device was used” and that from “the behaviour of the authorities, against whom the protests were organised, it can be concluded that they are connected with it”.
In mid-March 2025, students had not yet demanded early elections, but Vučić repeatedly accused them of carrying out a “colour revolution”.
After photographs of an LRAD sound device on a police vehicle during the protests on 15 March appeared on social media, the Minister of the Interior, Ivica Dačić, demonstrated how it works, previously describing it as “a slightly stronger megaphone”.
The European Court has not yet reached a decision
The Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, together with several civil society organisations, addressed the European Court of Human Rights.
The court issued an interim measure to Serbia, indicating that “the state should prevent the use of sonic weapons or similar devices at future protests”.
“This decision does not mean that the court has taken any position on whether such weapons were used on 15 March 2025,” the court stated in its announcement regarding the decision of 29 April.
Interim measures are urgent measures ordered by the court in situations where there is an “immediate risk” that “irreparable damage” could occur due to violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to the court’s website.
The court has not taken further steps in this case, says Vladica Ilić.
“We will periodically inform the court about the progress or lack of progress in the investigation, and that is what we can do,” he adds.
FSB and the authorities: There was no sonic weapon
According to available information, only the Russian FSB responded to the invitation.
According to an unsigned report published on the website of the Security Information Agency, the FSB states that based on its analyses “a categorical conclusion can be reached that acoustic devices of the LRAD emitter type possessed by Serbian police authorities were not used during the protest”.
Vladica Ilić says it is unclear on what basis the Russian service became involved in the investigation.
“We asked the prosecution whether they had requested the engagement of the FSB, and we received the answer: ‘No’,” he says.
The FSB based its report on tests of the LRAD device on dogs that did not “show changes in behaviour”, and on the analysis of audio-video recordings obtained from the Security Information Agency that were made during the protest.
“It is noticeable that individuals are present in the crowd who ‘stimulate’ and direct the mass. They stand in the front rows in relation to the centre of the ‘event’ and guide the movement of the crowd,” the report also states.
This document suggests that the behaviour of those gathered was synchronised and deliberate.
“That report, in my opinion, serves only to mislead and cover up the event,” Ilić concludes.
(Danas, 15.03.2026)
https://www.danas.rs/bbc-news-serbian/zvucni-top-na-protestu-u-beogradu-gde-smo-godinu-dana-kasnije/