A/HRC/15/25 65. From September to December 2009, the Working Group considered the comments received from all the above-mentioned stakeholders and drafted an amended version of the draft convention. 66. In a second phase and in accordance with the above-mentioned resolution which requests the Working Group to “share with Member States, through the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, elements for a possible draft convention on private military and security companies, request their input on the content and scope of such convention and transmit their replies to the Working Group”, the Working Group prepared a “Note on elements for a possible draft convention on Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs)” for Member States’ comments. This nine-page note was sent by note verbale on 4 January, with feedback requested by 15 March 2010. The deadline for comments was later extended to 15 May 2010. 67. The Working Group received written submissions from Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Canada, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Lebanon, Qatar, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain (on behalf of the European Union), Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America.9 68. The Working Group also received written submissions from the institutions of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).10 69. In parallel to this process, the Working Group also received feedback on the ideas contained in the draft elements during the three regional consultations held in Bangkok, Addis Ababa and Geneva. In addition, the Working Group also organized briefings for all permanent missions in Geneva during its session in April 2010. 2. General comments 70. Many States and experts underlined their general support for a convention, highlighting the need to strengthen the legal obligations vis-à-vis PMSCs and to put in place a licensing and registration system. They also underlined the key role for the United Nations in monitoring the activities of PMSCs. 71. One country said that the draft convention should emphasize States parties’ obligations to implement all international obligations, not only the norms of international human rights and humanitarian law. 72. Another comment raised the question of the legal status of the personnel of PMSCs which is not addressed in the draft text. It underlined that one of the objectives of a future convention should be the adoption of an international legal definition of the status of PMSCs, the establishment of criteria for the legalization of their activity, and distinguishing between the activities of PMSCs and other traditional forms of mercenarism. 73. Others raised the opinion that a treaty may not be the most effective way of improving oversight and accountability for the industry and argued that existing laws 9 10 GE.10-15155 Some of the comments are still in translation and may not have been fully reflected in this report. The CIS institutions that submitted comments include: the Executive Committee of CIS; the Committee of Heads of Law Enforcement Units of the Council of Heads of Customs Services of CIS member States; the Coordinating Council of the Intergovernmental Courier Communications Service; the Coordinating Service of the Council of Commanders of Border Troops of the CIS; the Coordinating Council of Heads of Bodies for Tax/Financial Investigation of CIS member States; the Academy of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation; the Federal Protection Service of the Russian Federation and the Federal Immigration Service of the Russian Federation. 15