Belgrade, a Silence Cut in Two

A noise in the middle of silence

Belgrade, March 15, 2025. A massive crowd gathers. A minute of silence begins, and right then, at the heart of that quiet, a sound erupts. Not a siren, not a firecracker: a brief roar that cuts through bodies like a wave. People flinch, turn around, some step back, others clutch an ear. In seconds, the minute of silence is split in two, replaced by panic. Videos circulate, rumors too: a “sonic weapon” may have been used. Authorities deny it, then acknowledge owning acoustic devices while insisting they weren’t activated that night. The story becomes national, then European.

What we call a “sonic weapon”

The term covers devices that emit highly directional, very loud sound. The best-known model is the LRAD, a long-range megaphone that can broadcast a message… or a deterrent tone. On paper, these tools are “non-lethal,” but their intensity, directivity, and the proximity of exposure raise obvious concerns: pain, ringing, dizziness, panic. Amnesty recently put the topic back in the spotlight, documenting uses, controversies, and blind spots.

Belgrade, the story and its counter-stories

On the evening of March 15, witnesses describe a “wall of sound” sweeping the square. International media relay reported symptoms (fear, nausea, tinnitus) and note the presence of acoustic devices in Serbian police equipment, acquired in 2021. The government denies at first, then admits owning the devices while rejecting any firing at the crowd. Weeks later, Belgrade cites Russian experts who claim no sonic weapon was triggered. In the meantime, European justice steps in.

When Strasbourg says: stand down

On April 29, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights issues an interim measure: Serbia “must prevent the use of sonic weapons or similar devices” for crowd control while it reviews a case brought by protesters. The Court doesn’t rule on what happened; it raises a red flag about risks to health and to the freedom to protest. This rare legal signal effectively imposes a precautionary principle in Serbia.

Beyond the myth: very real risks

We know what excessive sound can do: immediate pain, persistent ringing, temporary or lasting hearing loss. In a dense crowd, an intense tone can add panic to physical injury. Specialists keep repeating it: everything hinges on distance–intensity–duration. By design, a directional device that “aims” at a group shrinks that safety margin. That is exactly what NGOs and physicians warn about when these tools leave the realm of communication (messages) and enter coercion (deterrent tones).

What we know, what we still don’t

We know an abnormal noise shattered the minute of silence in Belgrade and sparked panic. We know Serbian police possess acoustic devices. We know the executive denies offensive use that evening. We also know the European Court asked Serbia to prevent their deployment against crowds while facts are clarified. What don’t we know? The exact origin of the March 15 sound, for lack of a published independent expert report and access to technical data (activation logs, on-site measurements, protocols). Until those pieces exist, distrust grows.

Three safeguards to clear the fog

First: transparency. If an acoustic device is deployed, activation must be logged, timestamped, measured, and made verifiable by third parties. Second: boundaries. A public framework should spell out what counts as communication (messages) and what is prohibited (coercive tones), with exposure thresholds and minimum distances. Third: independent oversight. Physicians, acousticians, and legal experts must be able to audit without hindrance. Without these safeguards, every suspicious noise will turn into a state affair.

Why this story concerns all of us

Sound is invisible. It shows up in no photo, leaves no neat trace, yet it can injure. In Belgrade, a burst of noise lasting seconds was enough to crack trust between demonstrators and authorities. That fracture won’t heal with denials or grand statements. It needs facts, figures, and a clear ethics of sound in public space. Amnesty, journalists, and researchers are amplifying the call; it’s up to us to demand a shift from denial to evidence.

Further reading

This isn’t a tech gimmick: it touches on the right to protest, public health, and democratic accountability. Investigations and broadcast reports have carried the story forward, giving voice to witnesses, physicians, and legal experts.

See the investigation by Amnesty (La Chronique), the in-depth report from Earshot, the special coverage by the Serbian weekly Vreme, and N1’s segments; for international coverage, see the Associated Press and Reuters; and for the legal angle, read EJIL:Talk and the interim measure published by the ECtHR (see also the HUDOC note).