A/HRC/42/42 often poorly equipped to deal with the complexities of serious human rights abuses, such as the protection of victims from reprisals from alleged perpetrators and providing other forms of support to engage meaningfully with the process, especially for victims that have not been appropriately informed about their rights. In some cases, when victims have engaged with the company’s grievance mechanism, they have been asked to sign a legal waiver that denies them the right to seek judicial remedy or that restricts their access to justice. They also fail to meet international standards of independence of investigations, when the latter are conducted by company employees. These mechanisms therefore also fail to provide justice and remedies to victims of serious human rights abuses. VII. Conclusions and recommendations 63. Private military and security companies are among a number of actors providing security services to extractive companies, amid generally complex and opaque security arrangements within the industry. In this context, they have been known to directly commit human rights abuses, as well as to facilitate abuses and violations committed by others, working under contract from extractive companies, and sometimes alongside State security forces. The Working Group is concerned over the lack of transparency with regard to the actors engaged in securing extractive operations and their respective roles, responsibilities and chains of command. The ambiguity surrounding the provision of security services in the extractive industry reinforces the lack of accountability and the unchecked power experienced by victims of human rights abuses and violations with respect to extractive corporations and their affiliates, including private military and security companies. In the view of the Working Group, there is a vital need to define the role of each security actor, and to introduce greater transparency and access to information, coupled with stronger monitoring and oversight of private military and security companies and other actors providing security services to the extractive industry in order to effectively prevent, address and remedy any abuses committed by private military and security companies in the service of extractive companies. 64. Although initiatives have already been taken to raise standards and respect for human rights, they are non-binding and have made only limited progress with regard to those affected by extractive operations. First and foremost, it is incumbent upon States to fulfil their international human rights obligations by making prompt efforts to address human rights concerns arising from the relationship between the extractive industry and private security. Secondly, as an industry that wields significant economic power and represents a major client base for private military and security companies, the extractive sector has the potential to leverage its influence by insisting that private military and security companies deliver services respectful of human rights of all stakeholders affected by extractive operations, and not commit human rights abuses or facilitate human rights abuses and violations by others. Lastly, private military and security companies should adopt policies and measures to avoid operating in environments with human rights risks and to redress human rights abuses should they be committed. In the light of the conclusions, the Working Group makes the recommendations below. A. States 65. States should strengthen their regulation and oversight of private military and security companies with a view to improving human rights protections and taking into consideration the multiple sectors in which such companies operate, including the extractive industry. This should include strict processes of licensing and vetting, and provisions on mutual legal assistance. 66. In this regard, States should support international legally binding instruments on transnational corporations and other business enterprises and on the activities of private military and security companies, respectively. States should also enact other relevant legislative reform, notably on mandatory human rights due diligence and corporate liability. 17