A/HRC/33/43 provisions which restrict the use of weapons and impose legal consequences for their violation. It is desirable that all countries develop legal and criminal restraints on private security company personnel so as to ensure better compliance with standards under international human rights law. Use of force and firearms 35. Only three of the six countries have enacted legislation restricting the use of force by private security personnel: Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and the Republic of Moldova. The law in Azerbaijan contains general provisions concerning private security companies, whereby “special equipment”, that is certain kinds of weapons and protective equipment, may be used only in “extreme circumstances”.31 36. The laws of Kyrgyzstan and the Republic of Moldova specify the circumstances under which the use of firearms or special devices is justified: firearms may be used in defence against an impending attack that threatens human life or health, against a group attack or armed assault against protected property, to restrain individuals showing armed resistance, or to fire a warning shot in the air. Special equipment may be used only to repel immediate attacks, to restrain an offender attempting to flee from a crime scene, or when “non-violent preventive actions did not result in the desired outcome”. The legislation includes procedures and mandatory actions to be taken before and after the use of force. The law of Kyrgyzstan requires every instance of firearm use to be reported immediately to local internal affairs authorities. Law in the Republic of Moldova includes further provisions: the security or law enforcement agents must issue a prior warning of the intention to use force. 37. That only three of the six analysed legal regimes contain provisions regarding the use of force by private security company personnel demonstrates that the law in this region is quite undeveloped. To protect fundamental human rights, notably the right to life and the right to security, there must be a clear distinction between the activities of private security companies and State authorities and a prohibition on the involvement of private security company personnel in combat and military activities. Legislation should also provide for any differences in what is permitted during peacetime and in the course of armed conflict as well as regulation of the involvement of foreign personnel in private security companies or in the participation of those companies in operations abroad. Finally, the provisions regarding the right to self-defence and the conditions under which the use of force is justified should be further elaborated so as to ensure that the use of force is mandated, proportional and restricted to what is necessary, in accordance with international law. Accountability for violations and remedies for victims 38. Research reveals that in all six reviewed countries there is a government department with similar functions that is responsible for regulating the activities of private security companies; this is essentially the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In some countries, the ministries work in cooperation with another State body: the Prosecutor’s Office in Kazakhstan, the Chamber of Licensing in the Republic of Moldova, the National Guard in Tajikistan and the First Deputy Prime Minister in Uzbekistan. 39. However, only four of the six countries have enacted legislation providing for regulatory measures. The laws in Kazakhstan and Tajikistan contain general provisions, stating that the regulatory bodies would conduct “surveillance”32 and “operational31 32 Articles 14 and 15 of Law No. 226-IIG; Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 127 of 13 August 2007 (as amended). Articles 1 (2) and 22 of Law No. 85-II; articles 1 (75-1) and (75-3) of Law No. 377-IV. 9