A/HRC/10/14 page 12 45. The Working Group notes that the document places a heavier burden of responsibility on “Territorial States” (States where private military and security companies operate) than on “Contracting States” or “Home States” from where these companies originate or operate. The limited scope of obligations for “Contracting States” or “Home States” can be seen throughout the whole document. Moreover, the restrictive character of the document is illustrated by the indication that international humanitarian law only applies in armed conflict, and it fails to include a reference to the State obligation to protect and to apply the principle of due diligence.1 46. The commercial logic of the private military and security industry appears to be the impetus behind the Swiss Initiative document. For example, good practice 17 proposes “to consider pricing and duration of a specific contract as a way to promote relevant international humanitarian law and human rights law”, and the Initiative has therefore de facto recognized the validity of the new industry instead of proposing a moratorium on such recognition until the good practices which it has developed are translated into reality and relevant mechanisms have been put in place. The Working Group notes that the industry lobby appears to have participated quite strongly in the Initiative’s process. 47. Nothing in the Montreux Document indicates that States should ensure that existing laws, including criminal laws, are enforced, particularly, but not exclusively, the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, and requirements that private military and security companies and their employees be held accountable for serious crimes. Nor is there any provision in the document that States should strengthen government standards for procurement, contracting and management of the private military and security industry backed by an effective reporting mechanism.2 48. Finally, the approach on Contracting, Territorial and Home States excludes those States from where the manpower is recruited by private military and security companies, in most cases without consultations with the respective Governments.3 It also fails to provide for a centralized system at the State level which would be responsible for registering all private military and security industry contracts for applying common standards and for monitoring contracts. 49. The Working Group believes that new international regulations, most likely in the form of a new international convention with an accompanying model law are needed in order to bring private military and security companies fully out of the legal “grey zone”. The Working Group has started drafting and discussing with Governments and with companies the possible elements of such a convention. 1 Amnesty International Public Statement on the Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States related to the Operations of Private Military and Security Companies during Armed Conflict (AI Index IOR 30/010/2008). 2 Human Rights First: How to End Impunity for Private Security and Other Contractors, Blueprint for the Next U.S. Administration, November 2008. 3 See A/HRC/7/7/Add.4.