A/HRC/42/36 security companies, which threatened the peace and security of countries and destabilized societies. 13. The representative of Algeria stressed the importance of preventing human rights and humanitarian law abuses by private military and security companies. Furthermore, the representative emphasized the need to hold the perpetrators of such abuses accountable before the law. Algeria believed that victims of such abuses by military and security companies should have access to an appropriate remedy, notably by receiving adequate compensation. 14. The representative of Brazil asserted that private military and security companies did not operate in a legal vacuum and that the Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies During Armed Conflict provided a compilation of international norms relevant to the work of private military and security companies. Brazil recognized, however, that gaps related to the prevention and accountability for abuses of human rights and international humanitarian law remained. The representative also noted that a clear definition of functions that may not be delegated to non-State actors was necessary. 15. The representative of China highlighted that private military and security companies should be regulated under international humanitarian law, international human rights law and the domestic laws of relevant States. It was also underscored that those activities should be monitored by international mechanisms. The representative also stressed that States should bear primary responsibility for ensuring that private military and security companies acted within the law, and also reported on the country’s efforts to improve national legislation to enhance regulation of domestic security companies. 16. The representative of Cuba supported the elaboration of a broad, binding and universal international instrument. In addition, the representative thanked the Working Group on the use of mercenaries for its work over the last 15 years, especially for elaborating a draft binding document that would be very useful for the deliberations of the present intergovernmental working group. 17. The representative of Ecuador reiterated that it was important that the intergovernmental working group begin to implement its mandate, building upon the work of the previous working group, the relevant work of other special procedure mandate holders, mechanisms and working groups and other related initiatives, with the objective of establishing a legally binding regulatory framework to ensure effective protection of human rights, access to justice, and accountability for violations and abuses relating to the activities of private military and security companies. 18. The representative of Egypt stressed the need to take into account the differences in national legislation related to the establishment and organization of private military and security companies. It was also pointed out that Egypt was one of several countries that allowed the establishment of private security companies to guard people and private property. Additionally, the representative underscored that Egypt did not allow the establishment of private military companies, in accordance with article 200 of the Egyptian Constitution. The representative also pointed out that not all countries supported ongoing initiatives related to the private military and security companies such as the Montreux Document; Egypt was one of those countries. 19. The representative of the European Union asserted the importance of a predictable environment in which to operate, in respect of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The European Union hoped to continue to work in the direction of further complementing and strengthening existing initiatives such as the Montreux Document Forum and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers. 20. The representative of India was of the view that the Montreux Document and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers were basically soft law instruments adopted at the international level to regulate the activities of private military and security companies. Those instruments did not adequately address the accountability of private military and security companies for human rights violations and 4