A/HRC/4/42 page 20 law, this may require positive action to avoid responsibilities of complicity for human rights violations, within certain spheres of influence. The Working Group thus urges States to further develop international and national regulation, control and monitoring of the activities of PMSCs, including registration and licensing, in order to provide effective oversight and ensure that services provided by PMSCs operate in a legal framework in accordance with human rights standards. 59. The Working Group observes that it is weak national legislations on the operation of PMSCs that enable multinational companies to profit in the transnational market for private security services. On the basis of country visits undertaken and information received, the Working Group has observed at least three national conditions which allow the recruitment of personnel for these private companies: (a) unemployment, and/or underemployment, and the availability of low-wage labour trained in security and military functions; (b) a migratory population ready to work abroad; and (c) scarce or weak national legislation that allows largely unmonitored activities of PMSCs. In this regard, the Working Group notes that experiences of recruitment for these services display elements and features similar to that of human trafficking. 60. Certainly one of the problems which the Working Group encounters is how to interpret whether PMSCs and their employees should be considered as mercenaries. The problem with the current definition is twofold: either nearly everyone engaged privately in armed conflict is covered by the definition, or no one is, thus making the Convention very difficult if not impossible to implement, and the monitoring work of the Working Group particularly challenging. In the strict interpretation of the definition of “mercenaries” in international law and the domestic law in several countries, private soldiering for private gain will be defined as a mercenary under certain criteria, and subject to prosecution. However, the definition as it currently stands is no longer satisfactory because activities by contracted personnel, whether contracted by the State or intergovernmental organizations, could be caught by the definition which criminalizes private actors engaged in armed conflict. According to the definition laid down in the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, and in international humanitarian law, the Working Group is, however, of the position that it cannot be said strictu sensu that PMSCs or their employees satisfy all its requisites. To address this legal loophole, it would be necessary either to amend the International Convention, as has been proposed already by the first Special Rapporteur on mercenaries, or to elaborate an Additional Protocol, which would complement the Convention. Despite its limitations, accession to the International Convention is a positive step and thus encouraged by the Working Group. 61. However, in order to clarify exactly what can be permitted as having a legitimate status in armed conflict, and what is not, Member States need to decide what the international community will accept as State responsibility for the use of force. Activities of PMSCs which will not be permitted can be defined as mercenarism and those engaging in impermissible activities prosecuted under the International Convention or other law. 62. To effectively address these outstanding challenges of its mandate, the Working Group reiterates and supports the proposal of the former Special Rapporteur, Ms. Shaista Shameem, for