As SAVAK’s influence expanded, its relationship with the judicial system also changed significantly. Political detainees were often investigated primarily by SAVAK officers before any judicial proceedings began. Interrogations conducted by security officials frequently formed the basis for prosecutions, while allegations of coercion or torture were rarely investigated independently by the courts. In many cases, military tribunals relied heavily upon evidence collected during security interrogations. This close relationship between intelligence agencies and military courts raised serious questions regarding judicial impartiality and due process.
The military courts responsible for trying political opponents operated within a framework that increasingly reflected security priorities rather than traditional legal standards. Because many judges serving on military tribunals were themselves members of the armed forces, critics argued that institutional independence was inherently limited. Moreover, military courts frequently conducted proceedings under emergency security regulations that restricted defendants’ procedural rights. Public access to hearings was often limited, legal representation could be constrained, and appeals were subject to significant limitations.
