A/HRC/33/43 IV. Conclusions and recommendations 89. The research reveals that while each of the six countries that were part of the former Soviet Union has legislation that directly or indirectly regulates private security companies, each country approaches the regulation of those companies differently. There is a general regulatory emphasis on formal and procedural conditions, each country having a set of detailed criteria for the licensing, registration, selection and training of private security companies and their personnel; however, there is little provision for substantive requirements, with no reference to human rights or any international standards. Along with the general lack of mechanisms for the implementation and enforcement of the relevant regulations, the private security industry is in practice subject to relatively loose control. 90. The study also demonstrates that despite detailed provisions on permitted and prohibited activities, the acquisition of weapons and the use of force, the different roles and functions of private security companies and those of law enforcement authorities remain ambiguous. These regulatory gaps pose risks of violation of both national laws and international humanitarian law. In view in particular of the transnational tendencies of private security companies and the general lack of extraterritorial application of legal instruments, there is little protection of fundamental human rights such as the right to security, the right to life, the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and the right of victims to effective remedies. 91. Regarding the accountability of private military and security companies and their personnel, the analysis reveals that the reviewed legislation lacks specific rules on inspections and monitoring mechanisms, with no single publicly accountable body dedicated to the regulation and control of private military and security company activities. The different countries have slightly varying penal systems for human rights violations by private military and security company personnel, but there is a general lack of remedies for the victims of such violations. The standardization of accountability and enforcement mechanisms can create a comprehensive network of accountability throughout the region, ensuring compliance with international human rights law and international humanitarian law. 92. Concerning the review of Australia, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and the United States of America, the study reveals that each country approaches the privatization of the security industry differently, creating regulatory gaps in some respects. The analysed countries focus on the protection provided to persons and goods in the domestic sphere and the majority of the countries do not specifically address private military companies, the issue of military and security services provided abroad or the extraterritorial applicability of the legislation. Only two out of the five countries prohibit mercenarism in their national legislation. 93. In general, the five countries have detailed regulations on licensing and authorization of private security services as well as on the selection criteria for the personnel, but fewer rules could be found on the content of the training of private military and security company staff. The analysis shows that only one of the five countries analysed has legislation that includes some reference to international humanitarian law in the selection criteria or in the training materials. 94. Further, none of the countries has specific rules on the direct participation of private military and security companies in hostilities, while only one defines and lists “inherently government functions” which are strictly reserved for government personnel and cannot be exercised by private security or military contractors. 21