In a significant ruling, a US federal court has rejected a request by Parviz Sabeti, a former senior SAVAK official, to dismiss a lawsuit brought by three torture survivors on statute of limitations grounds. With this decision, announced on October 7, 2026, a case concerning the torture of political dissidents in the 1970s will, more than fifty years later, proceed to a hearing on its merits.
The suit was filed in February 2025, in federal court in Florida, under the US Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). The three plaintiffs, who appear in the proceedings under pseudonyms out of security concerns, allege that they were detained and tortured during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, within a system of detention and interrogation that operated under Sabeti’s oversight. Sabeti had sought dismissal of the suit by invoking the ten year limitation period set out in US law. Plaintiffs’ counsel countered that a well founded fear of security repercussions, together with the fact that the defendant’s place of residence remained concealed until 2023, had made it impossible for them to bring the suit any sooner.
The court has rejected the statute of limitations defense, though the full text of its ruling is not yet publicly available. The decision does not establish the truth of the allegations or Sabeti’s responsibility; it clears a decisive obstacle from the path toward judicial proceedings on the merits.
The legal significance of this development lies in the fact that the passage of time, even across several decades, does not necessarily mean the path to justice has closed. International human rights law, too, places growing emphasis on ensuring that torture victims are not denied their right to reparation on account of the passage of time. The UN Committee Against Torture, in paragraph 40 of General Comment No. 3, has made clear that, given the lasting effects of torture, statutes of limitations should not deprive victims of their right to seek justice and reparation, whether the violation of their rights occurred under the current government or under a previous one.
In the view of the Hana Human Rights Organization, the significance of this case is not confined to the torture carried out under SAVAK. The same legal principle, on the necessity of accountability, bears equally on the examination of torture committed under the Islamic Republic. Those who ordered or carried out torture, whatever their political affiliation or position within the government, may yet be called to answer before a competent judicial authority years after their acts were committed. Whether any given case can proceed, of course, depends on the basis for the court’s jurisdiction, the applicable law, the limitations period, and the available evidence.
This case is also a reminder of the importance of documenting torture and preserving survivors’ testimony. The evidence being gathered today concerning the torture of political prisoners, forced confessions, and the conduct of the Islamic Republic’s security and judicial officials may, in the future, form the basis for judicial proceedings and the establishment of individual responsibility. Identifying those who gave the orders and those who carried them out, recording the time and place of each violation, and protecting witnesses are all essential requirements of such efforts at justice seeking.
Hana stresses that torture victims’ right to seek justice must not be made contingent on political considerations or a change of government. Justice acquires real meaning only when responsibility for human rights violations is examined without discrimination, on the basis of evidence and the standards of a fair trial.
The Sabeti case, half a century on, is a reminder that the end of political power does not necessarily mean the end of legal responsibility, just as the passage of time, on its own, can never guarantee impunity for those who commit torture.
Hana: Half a Century After SAVAK Torture, the Path to Justice Seeking Remains Open
