Association of Iranian Political Prisoners (in Exile), AIPP IN EXILE, has welcomed two rulings’ issued by U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in the case against former torturer and senior member of the Shah’s security organization (SAVAk).
.
These rulings, while recognizing numerous documents and evidence about Sabeti’s direct role in directing and facilitating organized torture by SAVAK, rejected his request to dismiss the case on the pretext of statute of limitations, and declared threats and reprisals against the plaintiffs and their lawyers as influential factors in the decision-making. This court ruling also sends a clear message to the torturers, oppressors, and murderers of the Islamic Republic: the perpetrators of repression, torture, and executions are not subject to statute of limitations and cannot escape accountability.
.
This news was first published by a group called ICJA (Iranian Collective for Justice & Accountability), and we are republishing it for public information.
.
13 August 2025
.
The Iranian Collective for Justice & Accountability (ICJA) welcomes two powerful rulings today from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in the historic case against former SAVAK official Parviz Sabeti. Together, these decisions represent a tremendous victory for survivors and a decisive step forward in the pursuit of justice and accountability. They also make clear that the pattern of threats against the plaintiffs and their counsel since the filing of the complaint is entered into the court’s record and informs its decisions.
.
In a 17-page ruling, issued on 12 August 2025, the court rejected Sabeti’s Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit’s central claim under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), finding that the plaintiffs’ “allegations, buttressed by several reliable sources, are clearly sufficient to plead aiding and abetting liability”. The court recognized the detailed historical record supporting the plaintiffs’ allegations that Sabeti provided “knowing substantial assistance” to the plaintiffs’ torturers by “direct[ing] the actions of SAVAK agents, within both the Third Division and the [Joint] Committee [to Fight Terrorism].”
.
The court further found that the plaintiffs “have adequately alleged” Sabeti’s participation in a conspiracy involving an agreement between Sabeti and the named alleged torturers of plaintiffs and others within the Committee “to use the alleged detainment and torture methods in furtherance of their goal to suppress opposition to the Shah’s regime and that they did so employ them against Plaintiffs.”
.
The court also concluded that the plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded Sabeti’s command responsibility involving the exercise of “effective control” over the alleged torturers. The court acknowledged “detailed allegations eliciting Defendant’s broad, authoritative role within SAVAK and the Committee, as Defendant recognizes” and found that Sabeti’s arguments before the court claiming the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged his “effective control” over the torturers “do not logically follow.”
.
Statute of limitations
.
In its landmark ruling, the court rejected Sabeti’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim based on the statute of limitations. The court found that the plaintiffs’ complaint “alleges sufficient facts which may justify an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations”. In this regard, the court referenced “Defendant’s daughter confirming that her family moved, changed their names, and lived in hiding” as well as absence of “available remedies in Iran or elsewhere – compounded by lethal threats emanating from both Iran and the United States.” Crucially, to allow further examination of whether “extraordinary circumstances” prevented the plaintiffs from filing their claim earlier, the court ordered the case to proceed to discovery on this issue. As part of this order, the court set a timeline requiring the parties to complete their submissions on this issue by January 2026.
.
Discovery is a pre-trial phase where both sides in a lawsuit gather evidence from each other and from third parties. This process typically involves exchanging documents, taking sworn testimony from witnesses and parties through depositions, and submitting written questions called interrogatories. In this case, discovery may provide an opportunity for plaintiffs to present critical evidence regarding Sabeti’s decades in hiding and the threats they previously faced or continue to face in connection with their pursuit of justice.
.
Propriety of Pseudonymity
In a separate equally significant 22-page ruling, also issued on 12 August 2025, the court denied Sabeti’s motion to strip the plaintiffs of their privacy right to proceed under pseudonyms. The court acknowledged that “[s]ince the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiffs have produced significant evidence of serious threats to their safety and well-being, in addition to similar threats directed to their legal counsel.” In this regard, the ruling quoted numerous threats posted on social media, including by individuals connected to Sabeti. The court also stated that “Plaintiffs’ counsel has received death threats from an individual that the FBI determined to be in Iran.”
.
The court concluded that “there can be no question that filing this case has elicited a plethora of serious threats of violence and other harm against both Plaintiffs and their counsel.” The court added that Sabeti’s “connection with some of the very individuals making these threats is deeply concerning. This factor continues to weigh heavily, if not determinatively, in favor of pseudonymity.”
.
“This is a landmark moment,” said an ICJA spokesperson. “The court has affirmed both the legitimacy of the plaintiffs’ claims and the right of survivors to seek justice free from threats and intimidation against them and their families. The plaintiffs in this case are not seeking political gain or revenge – they are seeking truth, accountability, and the dignity that comes from having their suffering acknowledged by a court of law.”
.
The ICJA commends the extraordinary courage and perseverance of the plaintiffs, who have carried the weight of their suffering for decades in silence and resilience. These rulings speak not only to the atrocities of the past, but to the urgent reality of torture and injustice that continues in Iran today and to the persistent patterns of harassment and threats against those seeking justice.
.
The court’s message is unmistakable: those responsible for gross human rights violations cannot hide from accountability – no matter how many years have passed, how powerful their positions, or how far they try to run. The court has also made clear that threats and reprisals against survivors, far from silencing or suppressing the pursuit of justice, can become part of the court’s record and inform its decisions.
.
About the Case
.
Parviz Sabeti, a senior official in Iran’s pre-1979 secret police, SAVAK, is facing a landmark $225 million lawsuit in U.S. federal court brought by three former political prisoners now living in the United States. As head of SAVAK’s Third Division, Sabeti is accused of overseeing and institutionalizing torture, including electrocution, beatings, suspension by the wrists, sleep deprivation, and coerced confessions, against dissidents of the Shah’s regime. Plaintiffs allege his tactics left a lasting legacy later adopted by the Islamic Republic. After decades in hiding, Sabeti resurfaced publicly during Iran’s 2022–2023 “Woman Life Freedom” uprising, creating the first real opportunity for survivors to seek justice.
.
The case against Sabeti has sparked a powerful reckoning amongst Iranians over the enduring trauma of torture and the urgent need to ensure that all survivors have a path to justice and accountability. It comes at a pivotal moment, as Iranians confront the possibility of political change and envision a future grounded in respect for human rights where torture and repression no longer go unaddressed and unpunished.
.
Reae Ruligs low