Judges, Prosecutors Say VJT Sound Cannon Report Lacks Seal
A group of judges and prosecutors says the VJT's analysis of the March 15, 2025 rally has no signature or seal and rests on no independent forensic exam.
The informal group of judges and prosecutors known as Odbrana struke (Defense of the Profession) on September 15, 2026, challenged the analysis produced by the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade (VJT) on the events at the March 15, 2025 citizens’ rally. The group says the document underlying the VJT’s conclusion that a sound cannon was not used carries no name, surname or title for the person who drafted it, and no prosecutorial seal, and that no act of this kind had been known in the practice of Serbian courts and prosecutor’s offices before September 13 of this year.
Srpske vesti previously reported the VJT’s conclusion that a sound cannon was not used at the rally, along with the reaction of Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic to that report. What is new in this case is the professional criticism of the document itself, raised by colleagues from within the judiciary, who argue it violated the presumption of innocence.
What the VJT Claims Happened on March 15
In its document, the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade concluded that a panic driven chain reaction of crowd movement took place at the March 15, 2025 citizens’ rally in Belgrade, and that this was not caused by a sound cannon or any similar device. According to Odbrana struke, the prosecutor’s office went a step further, assessing that the unusual sound heard on video footage from the protest had been added afterward, as part of what the document describes as a psychological operation planned to influence citizens’ attitudes and behavior.
According to the document cited by Odbrana struke, the prosecutor’s office reached that conclusion by searching the internet and social media and using a computer program to determine the origin of the sound on the recording. The group says no independent forensic examination by expert institutions was carried out.
A Document Without a Name or a Seal
In a statement carried by N1, Odbrana struke said the VJT document on the sound cannon contains a case number but lacks the identity of its author and the prosecutor’s office seal.
“The VJT document on the ‘sound cannon’ contains a case number, but it does not contain the name, surname and title of the person who drafted it, nor does it carry the seal of the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade,” Odbrana struke said in the statement carried by N1.
The group added that it finds it discouraging that in a case which drew reactions across Europe, the prosecutor’s office did not present evidence through forensic examination by relevant expert and independent institutions and individuals, but instead reached its conclusion through its own analysis of video and audio recordings and an assessment of medical reports on citizens’ health complaints. According to Danas, as reported by Serbian News Media, the group believes the report was published to intimidate and manipulate the public and is evidence of a worrying state of the rule of law in Serbia.
A Reference to the National Security Strategy
Judges and prosecutors from Odbrana struke specifically point out that, to their knowledge, this is the first time an act by a judicial body has invoked the National Security Strategy of the Republic of Serbia. According to the group, the report’s author cites the strategy as one of the documents that protect the constitutional order and security from psychological, informational or psychological propaganda activities in the Republic of Serbia.
Was the Presumption of Innocence Violated?
The group believes it was. According to its statement, the prosecutor’s office used the document to publicly disclose, contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code, the results of the forensic examination of the suspect’s electronic devices, citing his communications and revealing his identity in the process.
“With this document, the public prosecutor’s office, contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code, disclosed the results of the forensic examination of the suspect’s electronic devices,” Odbrana struke said, as reported by Danas.
The group adds that by using language that could lead the public to believe the suspect’s guilt had already been established, the prosecutor’s office breached the presumption of innocence. It concludes that citizens’ rights cannot be decided through unsigned statements, but only through decisions recognized by law, against which legal remedies are available.
“The rights of citizens cannot be decided by unsigned statements, but only by decisions recognized by law,” Odbrana struke said.
An Earlier Assessment from the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights
The criticism from Odbrana struke is not an isolated one. A day earlier, on September 14, Vladica Ilic, manager of the legal team at the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, described the VJT’s analysis as a paper without a seal or signature, full of contradictions. Two independent assessments, one from within the judiciary and the other from the non-governmental sector, now converge on the same point: the document’s formal shortcomings and the absence of independent forensic examination.
As of publication, the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade had not further responded to the claims made by Odbrana struke. The case of the March 15, 2025 rally remains an open legal and political question, and the next step depends on whether the prosecutor’s office responds to the specific objections about the form and content of the document it published.
