A/HRC/42/36 that focused on the nature of the services being provided in a particular case, rather than permanent categorization of companies. 51. A participant supported a service-based approach and recalled that all non-State actors, including armed groups, must respect international humanitarian law in conflict situations. Therefore, adopting a service-based approach did not create the risk that a private military and security company would not be covered by international humanitarian law as a non-State actor operating in conflict situations. Another participant added that it was very difficult to categorize larger companies since they offered a wide variety of military, security and support services. 52. A participant welcomed element 4 (b) of the discussion document and stressed the need for Governments to introduce the appropriate level of due diligence and risk management as part of their procurement policies. The standards applied in such policies should also be reviewed regularly and shared with government personnel in charge of procurement. It was suggested that the inputs provided by the different stakeholders in that regard should be combined. 53. A participant proposed that government procurement processes should refer to criteria such as companies’ past human rights records and internal procedures for selection and training, including internal policies and mechanisms for safeguarding human rights. Such requirements should extend to subcontracting services to ensure that the contracting State did not circumvent its obligations by subcontracting services to a third party. A delegation agreed on the need to include language ensuring that subcontractors could be held accountable. 54. A delegation asked for clarification concerning the term “robust criteria”. 55. A participant proposed the inclusion of language that would preclude contracting States from including any form of immunity from prosecution for their security contractors operating abroad, and territorial States from granting such immunities. A delegation questioned why, in element 4 (c), requirements in government contracts were limited to “national law, human rights law and applicable international law” when refugee law and instruments dealing with internationally displaced persons were also relevant. 56. Another delegation proposed including a reference to mutual legal assistance as an issue that needed to be addressed to ensure further accountability. 57. A delegation suggested adding another point to element 4 that would ensure that contracting States would bear full responsibility for the acts of their contracting agents and any third party, including the payment of damages to victims of abuses. 58. A delegation expressed concern about possible tension between command responsibility on the part of contracting States and individual criminal responsibility on the part of the perpetrators themselves, and suggested that it was the responsibility of the contracting State to include all necessary safeguards in the contract. A participant stated that under international humanitarian law the State normally bears responsibility for actions committed by a private company that is acting as an agent of the State. 59. A delegation also asked for clarification regarding the term “jurisdiction”. Territorial States (element 5) 5 (a) Ensure that the private security industry within their jurisdiction is effectively controlled and regulated; 5 (b) Determine which services may not be carried out by private security companies and private military companies in their territory; 5 (c) Establish a process to grant authorization for the performance of military and security services with robust criteria for licensing; 10