A/HRC/22/41 I. Introduction 1. The Human Rights Council decided, in its resolution 15/26, to establish an open ended intergovernmental working group with the mandate to consider the possibility of elaborating an international regulatory framework, including, inter alia, the option of elaborating a legally binding instrument on the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the activities of private military and security companies, including their accountability, taking into consideration the principles, main elements and draft text as proposed by the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. 2. The Human Rights Council also decided that the open-ended intergovernmental working group should hold one session of five working days a year for a period of two years. The first session was held from 23 to 27 May 2011. A full summary of the session is contained in document A/HRC/WG.10/1/4. The second session took place from 13 to 17 August 2012. A summary of the second session is set out in section II below. 1 3. Resolution 15/26 requests the working group to present its recommendations to the Council. On the basis of the deliberations of the first and second session, the intergovernmental working group has elaborated such recommendations that are contained in section III. 4. The second session of the working group was opened by Marcia V. J. Kran, Director of the Research and Right to Development Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). She recalled the mandate of the intergovernmental working group as set out in resolution 15/26 and noted that discussions at the second session would build upon those of the first session. She noted the issues at hand were complex, starting with the very definition of private military and security companies, which were engaged in a variety of activities and provide a broad range of services internationally and domestically. In this regard, she recalled that discussions during the first session underscored the importance of a clear definition of the term “private military and security companies”, with some suggesting the need to distinguish the activities of private military companies, on the one hand, and those of private security companies on the other. 5. Ms. Kran pointed to human rights challenges brought about by the increase in the outsourcing of security-related State functions to private companies, particularly given that such companies frequently operate transnationally. This increase had also raised questions related to the extent to which private actors could be held to account for human rights violations, and in what way. Protecting the human rights of individuals was especially difficult when private military and security companies operated in situations of conflict and post-conflict, where their employees may bear arms, operate places of detention, conduct interrogations and protect military facilities. In these contexts, it is especially challenging to ensure accountability for the activities of private military and security companies (PMSCs) and their personnel, in compliance with international human rights and humanitarian law. She highlighted that from a human rights perspective, what matters is essentially that there was no protection gap and no impunity, and that where violations occur, victims had access to an effective remedy. 1 The documentation pertaining to the first and second sessions of the intergovernmental working group is available at: www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/WGMilitary/Pages/OEIWGMilitaryIndex.aspx. 3