A/HRC/32/39 2. Impact on the State’s duty to provide security 100. In its study of regulatory frameworks for private security providers (A/HRC/27/50), the Working Group on the use of mercenaries noted that in some cases legislation explicitly prevents private security providers from performing policing functions. For example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, private security providers are permitted to provide protection to persons and property insofar as they do not replace the police, but they are prohibited from patrolling, arresting, carrying and using firearms, special devices and any other material normally reserved for the military and the police. Similar provisions are contained in the laws of Morocco and Tunisia. 101. However, there also appear to be instances, as the Special Rapporteur observed in Papua New Guinea, in which private security personnel significantly outnumber the police, and as a result, in some circumstances, start de facto to take on some of the core responsibilities of the police with respect to protection (see A/HRC/29/37/Add.1). Such a situation could become particularly problematic where, as noted above, there are differing accountability frameworks for the two groups. 102. To the extent that the provision of security by private security providers supplements that provided by the State, it ought to increase overall levels of security, and therefore protection of the right to life. However, States should guard against reinforcing any trend towards discriminatory security, to which private security providers may contribute. 3. Private use of private security providers 103. There are several contexts in the corporate sector where the overlap between private and public can be problematic, such as mass labour protests or disputes, or other mass gatherings taking place on or around private property, where the corporation involved may choose to employ a private security provider for security provision. As noted above in the context of assemblies, or other activities that take place on the border of public and private, either physically or conceptually, it is important to bear in mind that private security providers have a very different mandate and set of priorities to the police. As such, the police should be called in whenever uncertainties exist with regard to private and public interests, especially concerning the use of force in such contexts. 104. A further level of complexity is added when a private corporation employs security guards, sometimes using a recognized private security provider to recruit the personnel, but the private corporation itself is a company of a different type, such as an extractive industry. It is important to underline that the standards described above with respect to training, equipment, or the use of force apply to all security personnel, regardless of the main function of the company employing them. In circumstances in which a recognized private security provider has been used to recruit staff, there can also be confusion about the chain of command and decision-making, the clarity of which is an important element of precaution. The use of certified security providers can contribute to greater precaution in that regard. G. Monitoring and accountability 105. Accountability processes when a violation has potentially occurred represent a vital part of the protection of the right to life. With respect to a globalized and transnational industry such as the private security sector, it is important to ensure that accountability exists at the international and domestic (judicial) levels, and at the internal (company) level. 17