“COVERED UP THE SOUND CANNON, THEN PURSUED THOSE WHO SPOKE OUT ABOUT IT”: Prosecutor Marković Asked the BIA to Investigate 154 Citizens, Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Commission Calls for His Removal!

The first report by the Commission of the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office was published today. It found grounds for suspicion that Nenad Stefanović, chief prosecutor of the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade, violated the law and abused his authority. Specifically, the Commission identified disciplinary violations and serious disciplinary violations in his conduct, as well as that of certain other prosecutors. The report will therefore be forwarded to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime so that criminal proceedings can be initiated. These findings were reached after reviewing several cases, one of which concerns the “sound cannon”. The Commission points to a lack of objectivity and impartiality, the disregard of witness statements, and a biased assessment of evidence in this case. It is proposing disciplinary proceedings against Miodrag Marković, a deputy prosecutor at the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade, as well as criminal prosecution. The Commission believes he should be suspended from his prosecutorial duties.

It should be recalled that on June 19, the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade announced that it suspected students had “planned a simulation of a sound cannon” at the March 15, 2025, protest. It added that it had ordered the collection of information related to the matter, as well as interviews with everyone who had publicly claimed that a sound cannon had been used against participants in the protest.

In connection with this, the apartment of military analyst Aleksandar Radić was searched on June 22. Lawyer and LSV–Vojvođani vice-president Aleksandar Olenik was also summoned to the Criminal Police Directorate (UKP) for an informational interview, which took place on June 24. Dejan Zlatanović, editor-in-chief of the Srbin.info portal, was questioned on June 23. Vojkan Kostić, editor-in-chief of the Beta news agency, was also summoned to the police. He had met with Radić on the day his apartment was searched because he had interviewed him. Kostić was summoned to the UKP “on suspicion of preparing an offense against the constitutional order and security of Serbia.” Zdravko Ponoš, president of the Serbia Centre (SRCE) party, was also summoned on July 1. On July 17, the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office filed criminal charges against Radić, and three days later the Higher Court ordered his detention. An arrest warrant was also ordered because he had left Serbia with his family after footage showing his underage daughter being followed was broadcast on TV Informer.

In September, the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office published an approximately 200-page analysis of what exactly happened at the March 15 protest last year in Belgrade. It stated that no sound cannon had been used and that the incident was instead caused by a “panic reaction” triggered by students activating a withdrawal protocol. At the time, it also announced criminal prosecution of everyone who had “intentionally caused and contributed to the spread of false information” about the use of the so-called “sound cannon.” The day before, former President Aleksandar Vučić had stated that the sound cannon allegations were an outright lie and that the sound had been edited in afterward.

The Commission of the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office determined that the conclusions reached by the public prosecutors who signed the official memorandum dated September 11 contained numerous shortcomings that “cannot be attributed solely to errors in legal reasoning.”

It found that the case involved “a biased interpretation of the facts, through the exaggeration of the importance of certain facts and the disregard of those that do not support the case handlers’ previously formed position” that there were no grounds for initiating proceedings. The Commission also found that deliberate logical errors had been made in certain parts of the reasoning “in order to defend a previously formed position.”

Based on the contents of the official memorandum, the Commission concluded that the public prosecutors handling the case had not taken action with the aim of investigating the incident and determining whether a sound cannon had been used, but rather to formalize a decision they had already made that no “sound cannon” had been deployed.

Reminder of Marković’s Appearances on RTS

The Commission also referred to Deputy Chief Public Prosecutor Miodrag Marković’s appearances on RTS, first on June 19 and then again on September 14. It assessed that he had publicly demonstrated a lack of objectivity, reflected in a preconceived position on the interpretation of the facts. It also noted that he had warned people publicly claiming that a “sonic” weapon had been used that “all those responsible for these actions would be prosecuted and that none of them would get away with it.” According to the report, he was thereby “publicly criminalizing the exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.”

“The explanation provided in the official memorandum, claiming that the movement of citizens was caused by the withdrawal protocol activated by the security personnel, is rather unconvincing and rests on a logical fallacy known as ‘false cause.’ This logical fallacy occurs when a causal relationship is declared to exist between an action (the activation of a security protocol) and a consequence (a chain reaction of panic), simply because one event occurred immediately before the other. The proposed explanation still completely fails to answer the key question: was a sound cannon used at the critical moment? It also seems highly implausible that simply removing markers and changing security vests could, in itself, trigger such a sudden, chain-reaction panic among the citizens present,” the Commission of the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office stated in its report.

The Commission added that the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade had reached this position despite statements from approximately 150 people who, when questioned by the public prosecutor’s office or the police as citizens, said they had felt the effects of a sonic or acoustic weapon. It also pointed to the “opinion of the German expert team Earshot and numerous other pieces of evidence.”

In this case, the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade failed to clarify the obvious contradiction between the victims’ medical records and consistent witness statements confirming the effects of an acoustic device, on the one hand, and statements in documents issued by state authorities categorically denying such use, on the other, the Commission stated. Instead of resolving this contradiction, the Prosecutor’s Office prejudged the outcome, “by treating an unproven claim made by state authorities as an indisputable fact, while disregarding material evidence that directly contradicts it.”

In several instances, the political affiliations of those who recorded footage or criticized the official account were used as arguments against the credibility of their statements, the Commission added. It noted that assessments were made of people’s motives or personalities rather than analyses of the content, authenticity and technical characteristics of the recordings. The same approach, it added, was applied to conclusions about the organized spread of disinformation, psychological operations and the destabilization of the state.

The Commission also singled out the particularly problematic explanation of why citizens had experienced symptoms in the first place. The memorandum stated that these symptoms resulted from the use of whistles and various pyrotechnic devices, as well as fear and distress caused by running and a chain reaction of panic. It further claimed that citizens had sustained minor physical injuries as a result of accidental pushing and tripping.

“For the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade, any cause of the symptoms and injuries is possible, except the one identified by the injured citizens themselves. The Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade also failed to explain why students and citizens did not report similar symptoms at other rallies they organized, even though sound devices were used to the same extent,” the Commission stated.

They Asked the BIA to Investigate 154 Citizens Who Gave Statements About the Sound Cannon

Immediately after taking over the case from the First Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade contacted the Security Intelligence Agency (BIA) on June 26, 2026, requesting checks on a total of 154 citizens who had given statements about the use of a sound cannon, the report states.

The Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade asked the BIA to check whether these individuals were listed in the records of political parties and whether they had links to domestic or foreign non-governmental organizations. The stated purpose was to establish whether there were grounds for the criminal offense of calling for the violent overthrow of the constitutional order, as defined in Article 309 of the Criminal Code.

In a case where the primary focus of the investigation should have been establishing whether a “sound cannon” had been used, the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade instead undertook numerous activities and investigative measures targeting individuals who publicly stated that an acoustic weapon had been deployed, suspecting them of committing the criminal offense of calling for the violent overthrow of the constitutional order under Article 309 of the Criminal Code, the Commission pointed out.

The Case of Aleksandar Radić Is Particularly Problematic

The Commission assessed that particularly extensive and numerous investigative measures had been taken against Aleksandar Radić, including searches of premises and electronic records. It concluded that these measures were disproportionate to the potential criminal threat posed by Radić’s activities in this particular case.

It noted that instead of focusing the proceedings on determining whether a prohibited device had been used, the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office had devoted its full resources to targeting an individual over an opinion he had expressed publicly. As the Commission pointed out, this turned criminal prosecution into a means of exerting pressure on those expressing critical opinions, while the focus of the investigation was shifted away from establishing what had actually happened and “redirected toward intimidating and prosecuting those who publicly speak about the use of an acoustic weapon.”

Instead of investigating allegations that citizens had potentially been endangered by a sound cannon, the Prosecutor’s Office treated the entire incident as an attack on the state, directing its attention toward the political affiliations and civic activism of the victims and witnesses themselves. The report further states that “the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of expression and association was unjustifiably and maliciously treated as subversive activity, thereby completely undermining the principle of objectivity and impartiality of the public prosecutor’s office.”

The Commission said that the biased assessment of evidence and factual circumstances was particularly evident in Radić’s case, “where, instead of verifying the validity of his statements about the use of a sound cannon, the conclusion was reached in advance that he was promoting this idea, accompanied by an announcement of criminal prosecution.”

Disciplinary Proceedings Sought Against Marković: He Should Be Suspended

The Commission proposed that the disciplinary prosecutor submit a motion to initiate disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with Article 120 of the Law on Public Prosecution, against public prosecutor Miodrag Marković and public prosecutor Aleksandra Stefanović for the disciplinary offense of violating the principle of impartiality and undermining citizens’ trust in the public prosecutor’s office, as defined in Article 115, Paragraph 1, Item 7 of the Law on Public Prosecution.

The Commission also proposed to the Disciplinary Commission, or the High Prosecutorial Council, that if a final decision establishes that public prosecutor Miodrag Marković committed a serious disciplinary offense, proceedings should be initiated to determine the grounds for his dismissal, in accordance with Article 117 of the Law on Public Prosecution.

The Commission believes that Miodrag Marković, a public prosecutor at the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade, should be suspended from his prosecutorial duties once proceedings to determine the grounds for his dismissal have been initiated.

It considers that, while handling the case, Marković avoided comprehensively examining and establishing the facts and repeatedly, blatantly and publicly demonstrated bias in reaching the conclusion that no “sound cannon” or other sonic weapon had been used on March 15, 2025.

In this way, the violation of the principle of impartiality in the performance of prosecutorial duties, as set out in Article 12 of the Law on Public Prosecution, escalated into an abuse of official powers and duties in the specific case, the Commission stated.

It also found that this conduct bore the characteristics of using official powers contrary to the purpose for which those powers had been entrusted to the public prosecutor’s office. As a result, the holder of the prosecutorial office, Miodrag Marković, had, in the Commission’s view, seriously violated the rights of citizens and victims at the March 15 rally. These included the right to the inviolability of psychological and physical integrity under Article 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, the right to equal legal protection and legal remedies under Article 36 of the Constitution, as well as the rights of injured parties under Article 50, Paragraph 1, Items 5 and 7, and Article 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Proposal for the Criminal Prosecution of Miodrag Marković

In view of the above, the Commission proposed that the competent public prosecutor’s office initiate criminal proceedings against public prosecutor Miodrag Marković on suspicion that he committed the criminal offense of abuse of official position under Article 359, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.

It also proposed that the investigation establish whose instructions Marković was following, and whether the actions of the head of the public prosecutor’s office had created or reinforced the decision that led him to commit the criminal offense for which the criminal complaint was filed.