A/HRC/13/42* page 100 co-detainees.386 As Raymond Manalo narrated in his testimony, and as the Supreme Court of the Philippines found to be established, high-ranking military officers, including a general, were involved in his secret detention. Calls for their prosecution remain without results.387 Following their escape, Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo filed a petition for a writ of amparo (a remedy recently created by the Supreme Court of the Philippines to protect persons at risk of disappearance or extrajudicial execution), which was granted on 7 October 2008. 7. Sri Lanka 197. United Nations human rights mechanisms and non-governmental organizations have expressed serious concerns with regard to abductions by police and military personnel, detention at undisclosed locations, and enforced disappearances. Concerning the latter phenomenon, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions stated in the report on his visit in December 2005 to Sri Lanka that he was very disturbed to receive reports that appeared to indicate a re-emergence of the pattern of enforced and involuntary disappearances that had so wracked Sri Lanka in the past.388 He specifically referred to complaints of Tamil youths being picked up by white vans, allegedly with the involvement of security forces. In its 2008 report, the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances remarked that it remained gravely concerned at the increase in reported cases of enforced disappearances in the country.389 Specific cases of Tamil men, possibly suspected of links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), reportedly taken to undisclosed places of detention by security forces in a white van without a number plate and since then disappeared have been brought to the attention of the Government by special procedures and non-governmental organizations, without receiving a response.390 The Tamileela Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal-Karuna group, a break-away faction of the LTTE 386 Testimony reflected (and found credible) in the decision on the Supreme Court of 8 October 2008. In a communication to five special procedures mandate holders of 16 July 2009, however, the Government stated that the “non-cooperation of the victims’ families with the Philippines National Police impedes the process of uncovering the truth on said case”. 387 In the communication to five special procedures mandate holders of 16 July 2009, the Government argued that “the Philippine National Police cannot identify nor apprehend the perpetrators basing only on nebulous allegations without any substantial or corroborating evidence from witnesses. At this point, allegations pointing to the military behind the abduction, and the reported torture, sexual assaults … and burning to death … are without any basis.” 388 E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5, para. 68. 389 A/HRC/10/9, para. 366. 390 See for instance A/HRC/10/12/Add.1, para. 2349, A/HRC/10/44/Add. 4, para. 196 and A/HRC/11/4/Add.1, paras. 2274-2276. See also the case reported by the Asian Human Rights Commission at the address www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2008/2781/.