A/HRC/28/39 its customers’ personal data; providing control for customers over their own personal data and how it was used; being transparent in terms of the handling of data for its customers and users at all stages; and providing support for all its customers and users to help them protect their privacy and manage their personal data. He noted however, that his company had suffered two breaches of privacy since the charter was signed, emphasizing that protecting data from government interference was always a challenge. He stated again that it was important to recall that, while a number of telecommunication companies were committed to being transparent, transparency must come, first and foremost, from the State. He also recalled that telecommunication companies were bound by local laws and therefore that the legal framework within which they operated varied from country to country. He noted an ongoing trend for companies to map the legal framework in all the countries in which they operated. He noted that in some countries, the legislation allowed for transparency ex-post facto, either by allowing the companies to provide information on the requests made to them by Governments, or the data transmitted to them, or by permitting the State to do so. In other States, neither the company nor the State could be transparent about the measures the company had had to share. He noted that telecommunications companies tried with the means at their disposal to protect international human rights law. For example, he noted that during the Arab Spring, a Government had requested his company to send text messages to all their base customers. Following an initial refusal from the company, members of the armed forces were sent to reiterate the demands of the Government. His company sent the message as requested, together with the signature of one of the members of the armed forces present. This was a small, yet important, piece of information, which allowed civil society to understand the situation. 55. Mr. Nissim highlighted the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement. In order to illustrate that point, he referred to another situation which his own company had faced, where the Government in question had backed down on the requests it had made to telecommunication companies, owing to several factors, one of them being the fact that civil society had publicized those requests. He noted that he would support the elaboration of a legal instrument at the international level that would deal with the obligations of private entities regarding protection of the right to privacy from surveillance measures, and that model laws and best practices would also greatly assist Governments. D. Way forward 56. Many delegations stressed the need for continued multi-stakeholder engagement. They said that State engagement was not enough, but that private entities, civil society, scientific and technical communities, the business sector, academics and human rights experts needed to take part in the discussions. The need for further engagement of the Human Rights Council was also highlighted. 57. Several delegations requested that States review their procedures, practices and legislation related to communications surveillance, interception and collection of personal data, in order to adapt them to the needs of the twenty-first century and to ensure that they were in full conformity with international human rights law. Others called for a transparent international system with an adequate international framework of Internet governance, including appropriate safeguards to protect personal data. One delegation called for the development of a code of conduct on those issues. Several delegations and NGOs called upon the Council to establish a mandate for a special rapporteur on the right to privacy, as it was essential to bring focused and sustained attention to those issues. 15