A/HRC/42/36 26. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela recognized that the various initiatives that had been carried out in the international arena – as well as the selfregulation and national regulation of private military and security companies – could help to control their activities. The representative also observed that those initiatives had been insufficient to effectively address the impunity of private military and security companies, especially in the extraterritorial field. 27. The representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran considered that it was necessary to learn from past cases of massive violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere where innocent civilians had been massacred, tortured and abused in cold blood by personnel of military companies. Unfortunately, those atrocities were almost never prosecuted by any court of law or human rights mechanism. Therefore, States needed to work together to develop an international legal framework to regulate the activities of private military companies and ensure the responsibility of relevant States for misconduct and crimes committed by members of those companies. International humanitarian law and human rights law were two basic sources for developing the international legal framework. 28. According to the representative of Iraq, the discussion document and its elements constituted an important and constructive pillar to guarantee full respect for human rights. Iraq, as a party to the Montreux Document, had adopted legislation in 2017 regulating the work of security companies. Iraq affirmed the objective of ensuring that individuals’ rights were not negatively impacted by the activities of military and security companies, by means of a mechanism to monitor the work of those companies in order to ensure accountability for violations and reparation. It also supported a legal framework that deterred breaches by military and security companies. 29. The member of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries, which also has a mandate to examine private military and security companies, expressed support for a legally binding instrument that would complement the existing regulatory framework set forth in the Montreux Document and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers. She suggested that a way to overcome historical challenges in defining private military and security companies would be to focus on regulating the “services” they provided. She also called for the scope of any regulatory mechanism to go beyond “complex situations” in order to capture the variety of environments where private military and security companies were used and human rights abuses could occur. She noted that any future regulatory mechanism should extend to subcontractors and should include effective vetting of private military and security companies and their personnel; adequate and effective training, including on human rights and international humanitarian law; and transparent and effective State accountability mechanisms that could ensure access to justice and remedies for victims. She added that it was essential to take jurisdictional issues and mutual legal assistance into account for effective vetting and accountability processes. 30. The representative of ICRC (as Co-Chair of the Montreux Document Forum) recalled the nature and scope of the Montreux Document. It is a legally non-binding document that lists, in one place, existing international law obligations relating to operations of private military and security companies in armed conflicts and comparable situations, in particular those stemming from international humanitarian law and human rights law. The Forum has also compiled a set of good practices for the regulation of private military and security companies. The representative recalled that if private military and security companies were contracted to operate in armed conflicts, international humanitarian law would apply and set out pertinent obligations for States and private military and security companies. ICRC would be ready to engage with States on questions relating to international law applicable when private military and security companies were used in armed conflicts, in particular as regards international humanitarian law. 31. The representative of the International Commission of Jurists welcomed the convening of the working group and stated that there was a clear need for an international regulatory framework for private military and security companies. It should be built on the most recent development of standards at the international level and count on the participation of all relevant stakeholders. The Commission intended to participate in the process, as it had in the previous working group. 6