A/HRC/22/41 69. Belgium recalled that the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries did not solve the problem it was meant to address due to its low number of ratifications. The same problem could repeat itself if a convention on PMSCs was hastily negotiated. In the absence of a consensus on how to proceed, a convention should not be the only option on the table. Belgium suggested that priority should be given by the Human Rights Council and the intergovernmental working group to addressing a range of substantive issues such as the definition of PMSCs, extraterritoriality, reparations and accountability. Other subjects, such as arms exports, granting of licences and issues of international humanitarian law and international criminal law were beyond the mandate of the Human Rights Council and should be discussed in more detail in other relevant forums. Belgium questioned whether the issue could be approached with a “one size fits all” approach bearing in mind the difference between the activities of private military companies and private security companies. Belgium underscored that the second session of the intergovernmental working group had been more productive than the first session. It emphasized that the working group should continue its work on the basis of consensus before moving to the adoption of an international instrument. 70. China stressed that in light of the activities of PMSCs, especially outside their respective home countries, there was a lack of effective regulation, accountability and monitoring and oversight mechanisms. National legislation was important, but could not be relied upon on its own, given that many PMSC activities were transboundary in nature. China was open to the idea of a legally binding international instrument, and expressed its support for more in-depth discussions on the issue of elaborating an international regulatory framework. 71. The Russian Federation noted that the working group did not agree on everything but there was common ground. It was important to continue the working group on the basis of consensus and to develop a legal normative base. The second session showed that there were many gaps in the existing regulatory framework. In particular, the Montreux Document, despite the authority that this document carried, could not be considered a very strong and effective instrument given that few States had signed on to it. 72. France stated that it was important to continue the discussion with the objective of systematically untangling the complex issues at hand. It was important to recall that the working group was established by the Human Rights Council, which has a specific mandate, and that the Council should continue discussing those issues that relate to human rights violations linked to the activities of PMSCs. Other forums could also make a contribution. The starting point for the work of the intergovernmental working group should be a clear distinction between mercenaries and PMSCs. It was also important to look at actors other than States that contracted PMSCs, including international organizations and companies. 73. Algeria noted that existing regulatory initiatives were not binding and that they do not address the issues comprehensively. National legislation alone is not sufficient given the transnational nature of the activities of PMSCs and the fact that companies could circumvent national legislation by moving their headquarters. The inter-governmental working group should continue its discussions in a constructive spirit. 74. The International Organisation to Eliminate Racial Discrimination, a member of the Coalition for the Control of PMSCs, emphasized the limits of existing mechanisms in ensuring accountability and providing remedies to victims. The Montreux Document focuses on situations of armed conflict only; is not a legally binding instrument; and did not attempt to regulate the industry beyond recalling existing State obligations. The delegation noted that the draft Convention prepared by the Working Group on the use of mercenaries would be complementary to the Montreux Document and that it should be finalized and adopted. 16