A/HRC/42/36 abuses. Realizing the importance of transparency and accountability as core security functions, India had enacted national legislation to control, monitor and regulate the activities of private military and security companies. 21. The representative of Pakistan stated that private military and security companies needed to be regulated through an international framework. The concept of mercenaries and the protection of the right to self-determination of the people must be reflected in the future instrument. The concepts of effective vetting; mutual legal assistance; remedial measures; responsibility of States of nationality and contracting, territorial and host States; and responsibility within the chain of command of the private military and security companies were important. 22. The representative of the Russian Federation recognized the importance of the topic under discussion and stated that it would take an active part in the work of the working group. At the same time, the Russian Federation would restrict itself to providing advisory opinions during the first session because not enough time had been provided for the competent authorities to analyse the documents. The Russian Federation insisted that the working group should focus on discussing controversial issues such as legitimacy of private military and security companies, status of private military and security personnel under international humanitarian law, functions that could be delegated by the State to private military and security companies and responsibility for illegal acts committed by private military and security companies’ personnel. Only after States came to an understanding of those issues would they be able to discuss respect for human rights by private military and security companies and the transparent use of private military and security companies, among other items. 23. The representative of South Africa indicated that the country was flexible with regard to the modalities of establishing a regulatory framework. The representative also reaffirmed the importance of that framework in preventing and curtailing the destabilization of constitutional democracies and Governments and the promotion of social and political instability by private military and security companies, which had long-term consequences for the victims. Recognizing the urgency of the matter, the African Union had also been seized of the issue. South Africa remained concerned with levelling the playing field for private military and security companies and ensuring that there were universal rules to which all private military and security companies must adhere. This was a hotly debated issue in South Africa, particularly since it had private military and security companies that operated in various parts of the globe, and it was well known for its involvement with conflict prevention on the continent. South Africa appreciated that it must buttress its national legislation; however, it considered the Montreux Document to be only a critical first step in that regard. 24. The representative of the United Kingdom agreed that open, transparent and robust standards were required for private military and security companies as well as mechanisms for monitoring adherence to those standards. The representative also expressed the view that the existing framework of the Montreux Document and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers already provided those standards and sufficient regulation. 25. The representative of Switzerland reiterated the country’s strong engagement in ensuring respect for international humanitarian law and human rights by private military and security companies. Delegations were reminded that Switzerland considered the processes linked to the Montreux Document and Code of Conduct as complementary to the activities in the context of the United Nations. As a Co-Chair of the Montreux Document Forum and the International Code of Conduct Association, Switzerland looked forward to contributing to the discussions in the working group and hoped that those discussions would lead to a constructive dialogue on the challenges facing the regulation of private military and security companies, including on issues of jurisdiction and mutual legal assistance. Switzerland had also adopted the Federal Act on Private Security Services Provided Abroad to satisfy its responsibilities regarding private military and security companies. 5