A/HRC/41/35 45. Although the final report of the National Contact Point made several recommendations based on human rights standards, there is no evidence that Gamma has implemented them or even acknowledged the report.64 IV. Framework for the protection of fundamental rights against targeted surveillance 46. It is insufficient to say that a comprehensive system for control and use of targeted surveillance technologies is broken. It hardly exists. While human rights law provides definite restrictions on the use of surveillance tools, States conduct unlawful surveillance without fear of legal consequence. The human rights law framework is in place, but a framework to enforce limitations is not. It is imperative, urgently so, that States limit the uses of such technologies to lawful ones only, subjected to the strictest forms of oversight and authorization, and that States condition private sector participation in the surveillance tools market – from research and development to marketing, sale, transfer and maintenance – on human rights due diligence and a track record of compliance with human rights norms. 47. The previous mandate holder insisted that States should take measures to prevent the commercialization of surveillance technologies, paying particular attention to research, development, trade, export and use of these technologies, considering their ability to facilitate systematic human rights violations (A/HRC/23/40, para. 97). This call remains just as relevant today. In this section, the Special Rapporteur reviews the main elements of a framework to protect individuals from the uses of surveillance technology that interfere with the enjoyment of human rights. The steps proposed in the present report require action and implementation by: States, as users of these technologies and as exporting countries; by companies, in accordance with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; by States and companies working together with civil society; and by the Human Rights Council. A. Moratorium on the export and use of targeted surveillance technologies 48. Private companies are creating, transferring and servicing – and States are purchasing and using – surveillance technologies in troubling ways. Credible allegations have shown that companies are selling their tools to Governments that use them to target journalists, activists, opposition figures and others who play critical roles in democratic society. Some of these companies object to the allegations, arguing that they do not permit the use of their products for illicit purposes, they have mechanisms to evaluate sales to “sensitive” end users and they abide by national laws on the control of exports. It is possible that companies are making genuine attempts to address the charges of complicity in surveillance-based repression and abuses. There is, however, no particular reason to take private companies at their word without subjecting them to public disclosure and accountability processes. The gravity of the allegations demands transparency in companies’ relationships and processes, not to mention a range of other steps, which are described below. 49. Implementing the steps in the present report will take time. In the meantime, scores of journalists, activists, human rights defenders and government critics will be at the mercy of Governments emboldened by the array of highly intrusive surveillance tools at their disposal. It is therefore essential that companies immediately cease the sale and transfer of and support for such technologies, until they have provided convincing evidence that they have adopted sufficient measures (as outlined below) concerning due diligence, transparency and accountability to prevent or mitigate the use of these technologies to commit human rights abuses. Governments should also impose an immediate moratorium 64 14 See Amitpal Singh, “OECD finds actions of Gamma International to be in violation of human rights”, Citizen Lab, 3 March 2015; and “UK National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises – Privacy International and Gamma International UK Ltd: final statement after examination of complaint”, December 2014.