Police to Film Rally Participants in Kikinda and Zrenjanin

Police departments in Kikinda and Zrenjanin issued statements on July 20 saying they will photograph and video-record participants of public gatherings expected in their areas over the coming week. Kikinda police listed Tuesday and Wednesday, July 21 and 22, while Zrenjanin police gave a wider range, July 21 through 24, 2026.

Both departments cited Article 52 of the Law on Police, explaining that the recording is part of measures meant to ensure the safe course of public assemblies. The statements say the measure applies to locations where both registered and unregistered gatherings will be held. Neither statement mentions who the organizers are or what the gatherings are about.

What the statements actually set out

The wording is almost identical in both cities, but the scope differs. Kikinda police stay within two days; Zrenjanin covers four. Article 52 of the Law on Police governs the powers to collect and process data in the course of police work, and the police present it as the basis for recording in public places. This is, then, a procedure grounded in law rather than an improvised step.

What the statements do not resolve is the context. When an institution announces in advance that it will record participants of gatherings, including those that are not registered, the purpose of such footage naturally comes into question. The safety of an assembly is one thing; logging the individuals who attend it is another, both legally and politically. On that distinction, the statements are silent.

It is worth recalling that the right to peaceful assembly is a constitutionally guaranteed freedom, and that, under the same Constitution, it can be restricted only by law and only to the extent that is necessary. The announcement of recording is not in itself a ban, but it is a signal that participants may read as pressure, especially at unregistered gatherings where the line between security and surveillance grows thin.

Does recording participants encroach on the right to assemble?

The answer depends on what happens to the footage after the gathering. If the material is used solely to maintain order and deleted within the legal deadline, the measure stays within routine police work. If, however, recordings of participants are retained, cross-referenced with other databases, or used to identify individuals afterward, the emphasis shifts toward surveillance, a matter that demands a clear legal framework and oversight.

From the government’s vantage point, the message is that the state is acting predictably and within the law, announcing its conduct openly and in advance. From the vantage point of those who organize or attend gatherings, the message can sound different: that every arrival at the square has been recorded. Both perspectives have their logic, which is precisely why institutions should be more precise than these statements were.

For now, the known facts are the dates, the cities, and the legal article. What remains unknown is the reason, the organizers, and, most importantly, the fate of the recorded material. To what extent is it legitimate for police, in advance and without a stated reason, to log citizens who come to a public gathering?