The Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs (MUP) has come under scrutiny following allegations by Novica Antić, a former president of the Military Union of Serbia, that the ministry classified information about the use of Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) during a protest as “strictly confidential.” Antić claims this classification is illegal, asserting that it serves to conceal potential criminal acts and abuses of power by authorities.
According to Antić, the MUP has not provided answers regarding the number of LRAD devices deployed during the student protest on March 15 of the previous year. Instead, the ministry indicated that details about the devices, including their models, locations, and the police officials responsible for them, are contained within a security plan marked as “strictly confidential.” Antić argues that under Serbian law, such information cannot be classified to hide criminal activities or abuses of authority.
Antić further alleges that the procurement of the LRAD devices was illegal, conducted through a public enterprise, Jugoimport SDPR, and that the MUP confirmed having 16 of these devices in storage. He also highlighted the absence of documentation proving that police officers were trained to handle these devices, raising significant public safety concerns. “The deployment of LRADs without proper certification and training constitutes a direct overreach of official authority and a criminal act against thousands of peacefully assembled citizens,” Antić stated.
The controversy over the use of LRADs, often referred to as “sound cannons,” has been a contentious issue in Serbia, particularly concerning their legality and the potential health risks they pose. Antić’s statements suggest that the MUP’s actions may be an attempt to shield responsible parties from criminal and command accountability by classifying their identities as confidential.
The MUP has reportedly acknowledged several contentious facts, including the unauthorized procurement of the acoustic devices for units such as the Gendarmerie, SAJ (Special Anti-Terrorist Unit), and the Police Brigade. Additionally, the MUP admitted to lacking documents that certify the officers’ training to operate these devices or any awareness of the potential health warnings and harmful consequences highlighted by the manufacturers.
The absence of documentation regarding technical modifications and the operational status of the devices further complicates the issue. Antić emphasized that the MUP’s inability to provide these documents raises questions about whether the devices were used on the gathered citizens.
This development has sparked a broader debate about transparency and accountability in Serbian law enforcement, with potential implications for public trust. The classification of information related to LRADs and the alleged lack of training for their use highlight significant legal and ethical concerns. The MUP’s actions may face further scrutiny as civil rights advocates and legal experts weigh in on the implications for civil liberties and police accountability.
The situation underscores ongoing tensions around police conduct during protests in Serbia, where allegations of misconduct and controversial crowd control measures have been prevalent. The use of LRADs, in particular, has been a focal point in discussions about appropriate police tactics and public safety.
As the debate continues, the MUP’s response to these allegations and the potential for further legal challenges remain to be seen. The broader implications for civil rights and the accountability of law enforcement in Serbia are likely to be significant as the situation develops.
