A/HRC/30/47 B. Discussion with representative of private military and security companies 40. On 28 April 2015, the Director of the Security in Complex Environments Group, Mr. Gibson, indicated how responsible companies within the private security sector were embracing standards and regulations to ensure that their operations were transparent, accountable and compliant with international and national legislation, including human rights law. 41. Mr. Gibson first addressed the notion of the “complex environments” in which security companies worked. He admitted that the hitherto unregulated private security sector had fallen short of internationally recognized standards and that not all of those shortcomings had been addressed. However, he contended that the private security companies with which he had engaged were demonstrably embracing standards and regulations to ensure that they operated in an appropriate and transparent manner, and within the rule of law. 42. As for the companies that he represented, Mr. Gibson clarified that they did not employ mercenaries, a term he labelled emotive and implying action for financial gain. Those companies did not conduct offensive military operations but provided a range of risk management and protective services for their clients that were essentially defensive in nature. He said that weapons were rarely fired and then only for self-defence. 43. Mr. Gibson proceeded with an overview of self-regulation initiatives with regard to private security companies, including the Montreux Document and the International Code of Conduct. He highlighted the PSC-1 standard, which had been endorsed by the Government of the United Kingdom in 2013, and stated that British companies were being independently audited and certified against that standard. He recalled that the standard was expected to become fully international in 2015 and would be known as ISO 18788. He mentioned that full members of the Security in Complex Environments Group were required to demonstrate that they were working to achieve certification under PSC-1. Mr. Gibson also recalled the core functions of the International Code of Conduct Association, and explained his organization’s engagement with it, including to encourage others to develop coherent, transparent and affordable standards and oversight mechanisms. With regard to regulations in the maritime sector, Mr. Gibson briefly outlined the most recent developments, calling the publication of ISO 28007 in March 2015 a game changer that offered maritime security companies a robust auditable standard. 44. Mr. Gibson acknowledged that the key to the success of those standards had been the identification of independent third-party accreditors, who ensured that companies claiming to comply with the standard did so fully and in an auditable fashion. The United Kingdom Accreditation Service had accredited four certification bodies and they conducted rigorous third-party audits of companies to certify them against PSC-1 and ISO 28007. Those bodies, for example, had to assess how well the company’s human rights impact assessments had been incorporated in their management processes. In support of those international standards, the Security in Complex Environments Group had established an enhanced vetting process, using a credible and respected national body: the Disclosure and Barring Service. Mr. Gibson also mentioned that City and Guilds had developed a Maritime Security Operative Qualification that encapsulated all the core competencies required by ISO 28007, and that the United Kingdom had put in place a licence regime for the export, control and disposal of weapons used by private security companies. 45. Mr. Gibson also highlighted some of the industry’s frustration with the understandably cautious approach of the Government of the United Kingdom in handling operational issues affecting the sector, including with regard to floating armouries, a feature 12