A/HRC/32/39 45. On 9 March 2016, he participated in a side event in Geneva during the thirty-first session of the Human Rights Council on the use of force and social protest, organized by the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations and Amnesty International. 46. On 6 April 2016, he participated in a panel discussion during the fifty-eighth ordinary session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Banjul, launching the Commission’s general comment No. 3 on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: the right to life (art. 4). 47. On 14 April 2016, he spoke about human rights and ethical issues at the meeting in Geneva of experts on lethal autonomous weapons systems, organized by the States parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. II. Updating of the Minnesota Protocol 48. The Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions is one of the earlier founding documents of the mandate, adopted in 1991. For some time, the document has required updating and supplementing, as highlighted in several resolutions adopted by the Commission on Human Rights and reaffirmed by the Human Rights Council between 1998 and 2010.1 49. Given the input he received from many interlocutors during country visits and in thematic exchanges in the conduct of his mandate, the Special Rapporteur approached OHCHR and it was decided that they would collaborate in undertaking an update process. 50. The full process of the update over the previous two years is described in the Special Rapporteur’s report A/HRC/32/39/Add.4, and the completed text is presented to the Council therein. The Special Rapporteur hopes that the updated Minnesota Protocol will become a helpful reference for crime scene and forensic experts, as well as other investigators, whose work makes a vital contribution to the protection of the right to life. III. Right to life and the use of force by private security providers in law enforcement contexts2 51. The human rights system cannot be effective in the absence of security and, in some cases, without the use of force. The modern State typically claims a monopoly on the use of force, and as such is also politically responsible and internationally accountable for the force it uses or allows to be used. The power to exercise force is easily abused in any society. To avoid such abuses, those using force need to function within domestic legal frameworks on the use of force that comply with international human rights law and, where applicable, international humanitarian law. In addition, appropriate mechanisms for accountability need to be in place. 52. There is an increasing tendency for States to allow many of their traditional functions to be taken on or taken over by private operators, and security is no exception. Security provision has become a global marketplace, with private security providers 1 2 6 See Commission resolutions 1998/36, 2000/32, 2003/33 and 2005/26 and Council resolutions 10/26 and 15/5. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for research assistance from Thomas Probert and Josua Loots, and advice from Stuart Maslen and other external reviewers.