A/HRC/4/21/Add.1 page 27 provisions of Chinese law and the democratic management rules of the monastery, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of religion or belief. 97. The case of Tsering Dhondupo and Changchup Gyaltsen, monks at Sera monastery in the Tibet Autonomous Region and also mentioned in the communication, is in the process of being investigated by the Chinese Government. Additional response from the Government dated 18 April 2006 98. The Chinese Government has carefully examined the circumstances of the two monks from Sera Monastery, Tsering Dhondup and Changchup Gyaltsen. 99. Mi Ma, which is the dharma name of Changchup Gyaltsen (male, ethnic Tibetan, born in 1963, resident of Phenpo Lundup, county of Lhasa, Tibet) was expelled from the monastery for engaging in activities within Sera monastery calling for the division of Chinese territory and has currently returned to his place of origin. 100. Tsering Dhondup, which is the dharma name of Ngawang Yönten (male, ethnic Tibetan, born 1976, resident of Phenpo Lundup, county of Lhasa, Tibet) was detained on 26 August 2005 by the Tibetan public security authorities, in accordance with the law, for preparing propaganda materials calling for “Tibetan independence” and advocating division of the State. On 25 October 2005, proceedings were instituted against him, in accordance with the law, by the Lhasa people’s procurator’s office on suspicion of the offence of fomenting division of the State. 101. Article 52 of the Chinese Constitution stipulates that “It is the duty of citizens of the People’s Republic of China to safeguard the unity of the country and the unity of all its nationalities.” China is a country run by the rule of law and its people - regardless of whether or not they are religious believers - are all obliged to respect Chinese law and may not conduct activities in the name of religion which are in breach of the law. 102. The two men referred to above, on repeated occasions, prepared propaganda materials which advocated division of the Chinese State and conducted activities calling for the division of Chinese territory, violated Chinese law and the relevant provisions of the monastery regulations and received the appropriate penalty. The Government states that all this has nothing to do with freedom of religious belief. 103. The Chinese judicial authorities acted in strict accordance with laws and regulations under the Chinese Criminal Code, the Chinese Code of Criminal Procedure and other instruments, and there was no question of any “arbitrary detention” or “torture”. Observations 104. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government’s responses. She would also like to thank the Government for the invitation it has extended in 2004 for a follow-up visit and she hopes to receive a reply from the Government further to her last letter of September 2006 requesting dates for this visit.