A/HRC/42/36 proscribe private military and security companies so that they did not harm human rights. Participants agreed, but noted that the draft regulatory framework could consider clarifying that it was not intended to circumvent the prerogative of States to determine the legality of private military and security companies within their borders. It was pointed out that the discussion highlighted the relevance of having a guidance framework that could be used universally. States of nationality (element 7) 7 (a) Determine which military/security services may not be performed abroad by nationals of the State; 7 (b) Establish a process to grant authorization for nationals to perform military and security services abroad, including criteria for licensing; 7 (c) Regulate the conduct of private military and security companies’ personnel; 7 (d) Monitor and ensure accountability; 7 (e) Ensure access to remedy for victims where violations have occurred. 7 (f) The recruitment of its citizens and permanent residents to work for private military and security companies without a transparent and fair authorization process from a designated regulatory authority. 67. Several delegations sought clarification of the terms “contracting State”, “territorial State”, “home State” and “State of nationality”. Speaking as Co-Chair-Rapporteur of the Montreux Document Forum, the representative of Switzerland suggested looking for guidance at the definitions of the terms “contracting State”, “territorial State” and “home State” contained in the Montreux Document. A delegation expressed its appreciation for the efforts that had led to the Montreux Document, but stated for the record that it could not be bound by the Document as it was not a signatory. 68. A delegation suggested adding the following language to element 7 (e): “The responsibility of ensuring access to remedy for victims is not limited to States of nationality. Other regulatory actors and private military and security companies should also have such responsibility.” Private military and security companies (element 8) 8 (a) Establish and implement compliance mechanisms to ensure compliance with national and international law, selection, vetting and training of personnel performing military/security services; 8 (b) Establish a grievance mechanism; 8 (c) Supervise and hold accountable private military and security companies’ personnel that engage in misconduct. 69. A delegation expressed concern about the possible characterization of private military and security companies as an armed group under customary international humanitarian law, as that did not reflect current understanding of the law. Another delegation argued that private military and security companies could not be considered armed groups because they provided a business service and did not claim to be a party to a conflict. It further asked what would be required from private military and security companies and whether they would be invited to ratify the instrument. In its view, that would be problematic considering that the public international law of treaties covers the relationship between States and not between States and private entities. With regard to 12