The Više Javno Tužilaštvo (VJT) in Belgrade has issued a statement clarifying what it calls inaccurate claims made by the defense attorney of military analyst Aleksandar Radić regarding the acquisition of evidence during a search of his residence. According to the VJT, these statements were published in certain media outlets with a clear intent to continue targeting the VJT itself. The VJT emphasized that its actions have been carried out strictly within legal frameworks and according to established procedures.
The situation arose as part of a preliminary investigation into potential criminal acts related to the alleged use of force to change the constitutional order or other crimes committed in the course of official duties. As part of this process, the Military Police conducted a search of Radić's home and office, focusing on electronic devices and equipment used for storing digital records. This was done under the orders of a judge overseeing the preliminary proceedings at the Higher Court in Belgrade, in accordance with Article 152(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (ZKP).
Following this search, the Military Police will carry out forensic analysis to extract and examine the content of seized items. It is important to note that the Military Police possesses a certified laboratory for such analyses. However, the VJT clarified that the responsibility for analyzing the content and evaluating the evidence lies solely with the prosecution. The Military Police’s role is limited to extracting and delivering the contents of the seized materials, after which they do not take further action within the scope of the procedure.
Regarding the circumstances surrounding the notification and presence of Radić and his attorney, both were formally informed via telephone about the scheduled search operation. They responded that they would not attend the search, and the VJT was promptly notified of their decision by the Military Police. Subsequently, the Military Police received instructions to execute the judge's order from the Higher Court in Belgrade while preparing the necessary documentation, as stated in the VJT's communication.
This search took place as part of the ongoing investigation into Radić's involvement in the so-called “loudspeaker cannon” affair. On March 15, 2025, Radić became one of the first individuals to accuse the state of using a loudspeaker cannon against citizens gathered at the end of a protest earlier that day. Since then, Radić has made several controversial public statements, prompting the VJT to conduct an informational interview with him to address these claims.
In response to the VJT's clarification, Stefan Ćorda, Radić's attorney, claimed that the Military Police had unlawfully taken evidence obtained from the search of Radić's residence. He argued that neither Radić nor himself had been officially informed in written form about this development. According to Ćorda, he was informed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs that the evidence collected during yesterday's search would be analyzed today, and he believed this task would be handled by the Criminal Police Unit under court and prosecutorial orders.
However, Ćorda learned from media reports that the Military Police had accessed the evidence. He pointed out that legally, the Military Police should not be responsible for handling such evidence. If there had been a change in jurisdiction or an order for them to become involved, he stressed that neither he nor his client had been informed of this in any formal manner. Ćorda emphasized that such decisions could not be communicated verbally over the phone.
He also mentioned that he attempted to contact the person who made the announcement but was unable to obtain any concrete information. When he asked who decided to involve the Military Police, the person he spoke to redirected him to the prosecution, the court, and the police before abruptly ending the conversation. That individual did not respond to subsequent attempts to reach them by phone.
The controversy highlights the tension between the VJT and Radić's legal team, with each side presenting conflicting accounts of how the evidence was handled. While the VJT insists all procedures followed legal guidelines, Radić's attorney argues that the involvement of the Military Police was unauthorized and lacked proper notification. These differing perspectives underscore the complexity of the case and the scrutiny being placed on the legal processes involved.
3 reports
RepublikaParty-alignedCenterFactual 95Objective 8513 days agoThe Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade (VJT) has stated that the defense attorney of military analyst Aleksandar Radić made false claims regarding the unlawful seizure of evidence by the Military Police during the search of Radić's apartment. The search was conducted under the order of the judge in charge of the preliminary investigation at the Higher Court in Belgrade, in accordance with Article 152(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The search involved digital devices and equipment where electronic records could be stored, followed by forensic analysis to extract and analyze content. The VJT clarified that the Military Police only performed the extraction of data as per court orders and did not handle further investigative steps. Both Radić and his attorney were informed of the scheduled search via phone but chose not to attend, which the VJT noted. The search is part of a preliminary investigation into potential criminal offenses related to the 'loud cannon' incident involving state organs and citizens gathered at a protest.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a neutral account of the legal proceedings and clarifications provided by the VJT regarding the search of Radić's property and the subsequent forensic analysis. It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or omission of context. The information is presented,
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 85): Highly factual with detailed legal references and procedures. The article presents the official statement from VJT accurately. However, it uses some formal language that may slightly affect neutrality.
BlicIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 8013 days agoThe military police conducted a search of electronic devices belonging to Aleksander Radić, a military analyst, based on a court order under the Criminal Procedure Code. This action was part of a preliminary investigation into potential criminal offenses related to alleged calls for violent changes to the constitutional framework. The Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade stated that Radić and his attorney were notified of the search but chose not to attend. The military police have a certified laboratory to analyze the data retrieved from the devices. The prosecutor emphasized that the analysis and evaluation of evidence fall under their jurisdiction, while the military police are responsible only for extracting and delivering the content. Radić had previously accused state authorities of using a sound cannon against protesters on March 15, 2025.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the facts of the legal procedure carried out by the military police at the request of the court, with no evident ideological framing or biased language. It includes statements from both the prosecution and the subject of the investigation, providing balanced information without煽
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 80): Accurate in presenting both the defense's claims and the official response from VJT. The tone remains relatively neutral while providing necessary background information.
N1 SrbijaIndependentProgressiveFactual 80Objective 6513 days agoThe military police allegedly unlawfully took evidence collected during the search of the home of Aleksandar Radić, a military analyst, according to his lawyer Stefan Ćorda. The lawyer stated that neither he nor his client were informed in writing about this action by the military police, which is supposed to handle such matters under the law. He mentioned that the Ministry of Internal Affairs had previously informed him that the evidence would be analyzed by the Criminal Police Directorate, as per court and prosecution orders. However, he learned through the media that the military police had accessed the documents, which he claims is illegal unless there was an official order changing jurisdiction, which he was not informed about. Ćorda emphasized that such decisions must be made in writing and not verbally, and he attempted to contact the person responsible but was cut off after asking for clarification.
Bias read (Progressive): The article highlights alleged unlawful actions by the military police, suggesting potential overreach or abuse of power, which aligns with critical perspectives often associated with left-leaning narratives in political contexts.
Why these scores (Factual 80 · Objective 65): The article reports the claim made by the defense attorney but does not provide sufficient context or counterpoints from authorities. It leans toward the defense's perspective, affecting objectivity.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
Serbia
