Ten Years of the Disappearance of the Eleventh Panchen Lama of Tibet
Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was born on 25 April, 1989 in Lhari in northern Tibet. On 14
May, 1995, the Dalai Lama recognized the then-six-year-old Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as
the eleventh reincarnation of the Panchen Lama. Three days later, the boy, his parents and
his brother were taken to Nagchu Airport in Nagchu, Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) by
police from the Public Security Bureau (PSB).

While the international community expressed concern and criticism over China’s actions,
Chinese officials attacked the Dalai Lama, saying that his selection of Gedhun Choekyi
Nyima “demonstrates the political plot of the Dalai clique in its continuous splittist
activities by making use of Panchen Lama's reincarnation…”

Traditionally, Tibetan reincarnate lamas are identified as young children through a process
involving special religious services, divinations and other practices conducted by senior
Tibetan religious leaders who were close to the previous reincarnation. Following the
identification of a reincarnate lama, the child undergoes an intensive process of many years
of religious training in order to assume their important religious and social role in Tibetan
society. Typically, the Panchen Lama is heavily involved in the selection process for the
Dalai Lama’s reincarnation and vice versa. China’s motivation for interfering in the
identification and training of significant reincarnations is to control the political loyalties of
these important figures in Tibetan society, weaken the influence of the traditional religious
authorities, and use the reincarnates’ influence among Tibetans to China’s political
advantage.

Until the UN Committee on the Rights (CRC) of the Child formally requested information
about him, China denied that it held Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and his family. In 1996, in
response to the Committee’s inquires, Chinese spokesman Wu Jianmin replied that “since
separatists were seeking to kidnap the boy, the parents became fearful for his safety and
requested Chinese government protection, which has been provided. The boy is living with
his parents in good conditions.”2 However, to this date, no government body, concerned
organisation or independent observer has been allowed to see the child, and the Chinese
government has provided no evidence of either the alleged kidnap plot or the conditions of
the family’s confinement.

Conflicting reports on his location were provided to government delegations that have
expressed concern about Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. An Austrian delegation that went to
Tibet in 1997 was told that the boy was being held in his home village of Lhari, about 250
kilometers from Lhasa. 3 The same year, a US delegation and other sources were told that
the boy was in Beijing.4 In September 1998 the former UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights, Mary Robinson, was denied access to the Panchen Lama.5 In November
1999, a Chinese government representative made a statement acknowledging that the
Panchen Lama was still under their "protection".

In October 2000, during a round of the UK-PRC bilateral human rights dialogue in
London, British officials raised the issue of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. In a written report to
the British Parliament, Foreign Office Minister John Battle stated that: “We pressed the
Chinese to allow access to the boy by an independent figure acceptable to the Chinese
government and Tibetans to verify his health and living conditions. The Chinese stated thatthe boy was well and attending school. They said that his parents did not want international
figures and the media intruding into his life. Two photographs claimed to be of the
Panchen Lama were shown to us but not handed over.”

Dur ing the meeting, Chinese officials displayed two photos from across the conference
table: one of a boy writing in Chinese on a blackboard, and another of a boy playing table
tennis. There was no means to positively identify the child, the photos merely showed a
boy of approximately the correct age. There was also no means to determine his location. 8
In the case of the Panchen Lama, China has faced international opprobrium and the
rejection of their chosen reincarnate by the Tibetan people. On an individ ual level, China’s
abduction of the Panchen Lama and denial of his religious identity violates basic principles
enshrined in the general human rights instruments such the UDHR, the ICCPR and the
ICESCR. By abducting the Panchen Lama and his family, and de nying him his rightful
role in Tibetan society, the Chinese government has supplanted the legitimate role of the
family and community in his upbringing. The broad definition of family in the Convention
on the Rights on the Child (CRC) reflects the wide variety of kinship and community
arrangements within which children are brought up around the world. Article 5 of CRC
specifically acknowledges the extended family, referring not only to parents and others
legally responsible for the child’s upbringing, but also refers to the extended family or
community where they are recognized by local custom. The Panchen Lama traditionally
receives years of intensive religious education from senior Tibetan lamas, including the
Dalai Lama, in order to practice his traditional religious duties and functions. He cannot
receive this education in incommunicado detention.

The basic premise of the CRC, as articulated in Article 3, is the application of its
provisions with the “best interests of the child” in mind. Under Article 8, the Convention
provides the child the right to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and
family relations, without unlawful interference. Gedhun Choekyi Nyima’s identity as the
Panchen Lama is protected from State interference within the scope of Article 8. The State
Party has violated the right of the Panchen Lama to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion.(Article 14 and Article 30)

This is a non-derogable right, established in not only Articles 14 and 30 of the Convention,
but also in the UDHR and the ICCPR. State parties are constrained in their ability to place
limitation on these rights, and are only permitted to do so for reasons of public order and
safety. Under the circumstances surrounding the Panchen Lama’s disappea rance and
denial of his religious identity by the atheist Chinese authorities, it is unlikely that the
Panchen Lama is permitted to practice his religion.

Given the political motivation for the Panchen Lama’s abduction and his continued
incommunicado de tention, it is unlikely that the State Party is fulfilling its obligation to
ensure that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima has access to information and material from a
diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of
his social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health.

By forcing the Panchen Lama to live outside his community and requiring him to attend
schools outside Tibet where Tibetan culture and values are neither taught nor honored, the State Party has breached its obligation to direct his education to the development of his
own cultural identity and values.

The CRC explicitly preserves the rights of individuals and groups to arrange their own
forms of education. China’s educational system does not have a curriculum that accurately
reflects Tibetan history or genuinely promotes the development of Tibetan as a medium of
instruction. It is problematic that the Panchen Lama is being educated under an extremely
stressful environment where he is closed off from the outside world and his own
community. He has limited opportunities to learn about the Tibetan cultural identity and
values, and his role within that community. Article 29 also states that State Party shall
ensure that the educational system prepares the child for responsible life in a free society.
The continued confinement of this child and his family is contrary to this principle.
China has denied the Panchen Lama’s right to enjoy his own culture, to profess and
practice his own religion, to use his own language and to use his own religion in his
community. Article 30 of the CRC explicitly protects the rights of children of ethnic and
religious minorities to practice their faith and culture without undue interference from the
State. Through interference in the Panchen Lama’s religious identity and removal of the
child from his community, the State Party has blatantly violated this article.
Furthermore, China has not only failed to prevent the abduction of the Panchen Lama but
is actually the perpetrator of this abduction. The abduction and long-term incommunicado
detention of the Panchen Lama committed by the State Party constitutes an unlawful and
arbitrary deprivation of the child’s liberty and an unlawful detention. (Article 37,CRC )

Although the Panchen Lama has been deprived of his liberty, he was never given access to
legal and other appropriate assistance, or the right to challenge the legality of the
deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and
impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action, as required by the
Convention. This right is protected also by Article 9(1) of the ICCPR which states that no
one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such
procedures as are established by law. There is no provision in Chinese law that could
justify or authorize Chinese government authorities to act against the Panchen Lama or his
family in the manner presented to the international community during the last 10 years.1
In conclusion, we wish to highlight that the 40th session of the UN Committee on the
Rights of the Child (CRC) in September 2005, called upon the Chinese authorities to allow
an independent body to verify the fate of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the 16-year-old Panchen
Lama of Tibet. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the disappearance of Gedhun
Choekyi Nyima and his parents following their abduction on 17 May 1995. Adopting its
Concluding Observations on the second periodic report of the People's Republic of
China CRC said that it notes the information provided about Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, but
remained concerned that it has not yet been possible to have this inf ormation confirmed by
an independent expert. The CRC asked that the Chinese authorities, "allow an independent
expert to visit and confirm the well-being of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima while respecting his
right to privacy, and that of his parents."¨

We call upon the Chinese authorities to seriously consider the request from the CRC and
allow an independent expert-body to meet with Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and his parents
without further delay.