A/HRC/10/14 page 11 41. As highlighted in the report to the General Assembly, international humanitarian law only refers specifically to mercenaries on one occasion, namely in article 47 of Protocol Additional I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. This article does not prohibit mercenarism, but only States that mercenaries are denied combatant or prisoner of war status. The definition of mercenary in article 47 is such that many activities performed by private military and security companies under government contracts do not easily fall within that definition. Therefore, the Working Group believes that many private military and security companies are operating in a “grey zone”, which is not defined at all, or at the very least not clearly defined, by international legal norms. 42. Against this background, the Working Group has been following with interest the activity of the Swiss Initiative, a joint initiative launched in 2006 by the Government of Switzerland and the International Committee of the Red Cross to address the demand for a clarification of legal obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law as regards private military and security companies. The Working Group learned with interest that in September 2008, 17 States had come to an understanding on the Montreux Document on pertinent international legal obligations and good practices for States related to operations of private military and security companies during armed conflict (A/63/467), setting out what the signatories view as the relevant international humanitarian and human rights law applicable to private military and security companies as well as a set of good practices for them. 43. The Working Group made a detailed study of the results of the Swiss Initiative which collated in the Montreux Document good practices of the national and international regulation of private military and security companies. The Working Group notes that this initiative represents only part of the wide spectrum of countries and their approaches. The Working Group considers the Montreux Document useful in identifying existing obligations of States and private military and security companies and their personnel under international humanitarian and human rights law. The description of good practices section could prove to be a useful tool for setting out guidelines on both private military and security companies and State activities. The Working Group agrees with the principle, also reflected in the Montreux Document, that States retain their obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law even if they choose to contract with private military and security companies to perform certain activities. The State continues to have the duty to respect and ensure human rights. The document provides a number of good practices, such as good practices 5-13, 16 and 32, which take into account concerns expressed by the Working Group (see A/HRC/7/7, paras. 47 and 51). 44. While it is a good promotional document on existing international humanitarian law, the Montreux Document has nevertheless failed to address the regulatory gap in the responsibility of States with respect to the conduct of private military and security companies and their employees. One of the problems is that the Swiss Initiative has not been as broad a consultative process as required under the United Nations system. For example, States from Latin America and the Caribbean region did not participate in its work, and the unbalanced representation of Western Group States (9 out of the 17 adopting States) denotes the heavy involvement of countries where most of the security industry originates and operates from. Neither United Nations departments nor the Working Group took part in the Initiative.