A/HRC/22/41 63. The United States of America observed that States had taken different approaches to regulating this industry, which was why, in the view of the American delegation, there should be recognition that there is no “one size fits all” solution. The delegation noted that PMSCs created a variety of challenges. It was important to take careful stock of existing initiatives before taking a decision on how to best address these challenges and review what States were doing at the national level. The United States was prepared to commence a consensus-oriented discussion on certain challenges identified even though it had opposed the establishment of the working group. In particular, the United States proposed a discussion of the following items: the distinction between private military companies and private security companies; national regimes for export licensing and procurement; accountability under domestic law for human rights-related abuses; and international measures to promote accountability, including discussion of law-enforcement cooperation and extradition. 64. Switzerland reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring that PMSCs respect principles of international human rights law. It emphasized the importance of the Montreux Document, the International Code of Conduct and other proposals aimed at preventing human rights violations and protecting victims. Switzerland noted that it was ready to participate in the working group in a constructive manner. 65. Egypt stressed that the next sessions of the intergovernmental working group should build upon the expert presentations heard to date. Egypt reiterated its concern about the lack of accountability, monitoring and oversight mechanisms related to the activities of PMSCs. Non-binding initiatives, such as the International Code of Conduct and the Montreux Document were interesting, but have gaps and lack a victims-oriented approach. 66. Pakistan stated that the discussions had demonstrated that a number of issues would require further clarification and better understanding. Gaps in international law related to accountability, redress and compensation for victims, the status of PMSCs and their personnel, and the extent to which States could be authorized to use PMSCs, needed to be addressed. Pakistan referred to weaknesses in, and limitations of, existing initiatives which did not offer a comprehensive solution. Discussions of the inter-governmental working group should continue in line with the mandate given by the Human Rights Council. 67. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela highlighted the need to elaborate principles and elements of a future convention. The various initiatives that deal with PMSCs can provide useful guidance. However, existing instruments were insufficient, in particular regarding victims of grave violations of human rights. National laws alone are also not sufficient to deal effectively with abuses. Currently there was no legally binding document that regulated the use of force by PMSCs. As a result, PMSCs often acted with full impunity and human rights violations occurred frequently. Venezuela indicated its strong support for the adoption of a legally binding document that sought to fill existing gaps. 68. Canada underscored that time should be allowed to assess the effectiveness of the Montreux Document and the International Code of Conduct and efforts should be made to avoid duplication of work. There is room for further discussions on specific aspects of the issue. However, the scope of this broad and complex subject extended beyond human rights issues to questions beyond the competence of the Human Rights Council, including issues that relate to the use of force, the application of international humanitarian law, and the sale and transfer of weapons. Canada expressed doubt as to whether there was a need for a binding international instrument, as it was not obvious whether the gaps were normative or whether they related to a lack of implementation. While there was no broad consensus on the need for a binding legal instrument, Canada believed there was room for further discussion on human rights issues related to the activities of PMSCs under the auspices of the Human Rights Council. The intergovernmental working group should have flexibility in moving forward and its future work should be directed to specific issues. 15