A/HRC/42/36 32. The representative of Centre Europe-tiers monde underlined that it was crucial to hold responsible not only the States but also the private military and security companies, within their supply chains, by establishing binding regulations. The importance of establishing a follow-up implementation mechanism for the binding instrument was stressed. 33. In the debate following general statements, some delegations expressed the view that it would be important for any new regulatory framework to draw from and complement existing processes, mechanisms, legislation and initiatives such as the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers and the International Code of Conduct Association, the Montreux Document and the Montreux Document Forum. Other delegations indicated that they viewed those mechanisms less favourably, and a few underscored that they did not support them at all. It was pointed out that a new regulatory framework should be attractive and compelling in order to encourage States to subscribe to and support it. 34. Some delegations suggested that the new regulatory framework should build on the findings of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries, including its draft proposal for a possible new international legal instrument regulating private military and security companies (A/HRC/15/25, annex). The representative of one State proposed uncoupling the issue of mercenaries from the discussion on private military and security companies. 35. Delegations considered the importance of implementing national legislation that would incorporate international law regulating the activities of private military and security companies. The representatives of several States provided examples of national legislation they had adopted in that regard. 36. Several delegations discussed gaps in international law related to private military and security companies. The representative of one State, for example, highlighted the need to define the status under international law of individual contractors employed by private military and security companies. The member of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries responded by suggesting that any new regulatory framework should avoid defining the contractors themselves and focus instead on regulating services, as was done under Swiss law. 37. Several delegations noted that any regulatory framework should clearly list the activities that States may not delegate to private military and security companies. Other delegations agreed that a new framework should also regulate more complex issues, such as the behaviour of private military and security subcontractors and the use of new tactics and technologies such as cyberwarfare, unmanned aerial vehicles and autonomous weapons systems. 38. Several delegations highlighted the need to regulate private military and security companies given the fact that they had been used to destabilize democracies in the past. IV. Discussion on the elements for an international regulatory framework 39. In line with resolution 36/11, the working group considered the following elements of an international regulatory framework as drawn from the discussion documents adopted at the sixth session of the former working group, in the order set forth in its programme of work: objectives and principles of the regulatory framework (elements 2 and 3); contracting States and territorial States (elements 4 and 5); home States and States of nationality (elements 6 and 7); private military and security companies (element 8); and definitions and interpretations (element 1). These elements and their corresponding numbering are drawn from the discussion document. 7