A/HRC/30/47 certainly have the ability to influence the industry from a business standpoint. He concluded that, although the Association’s grievance mechanism was not as developed as its certification mechanism, respect of national and international law was viewed as a fundamental responsibility. III. Discussion on specific topics A. Substantive report of the Chair of the Working Group on mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination 30. In her statement on 28 April 2015, Ms. Karska said that the Working Group on mercenaries had undertaken additional research on national laws and regulations regarding private military and security companies in eight countries in Central America and the Caribbean, eight countries in South America and four countries in Europe (A/HRC/30/34).9 Three other reports had already been submitted to the Council.10 Its 2016 report to the Council would address the national legislation of countries in Eastern Europe, North America and the Pacific. Those studies had assessed existing national laws regarding private military and security companies and their effectiveness in protecting human rights and promoting accountability for violations, and had aimed at identifying common points, good practices and regulatory gaps that might exist. A global analysis would be presented to the General Assembly in 2016. 31. Ms. Karska said that the Working Group had held two expert meetings and consulted with stakeholders, including on the use of private military and security companies by the United Nations. Those efforts had informed the discussions of the Working Group on a possible legally binding instrument for the regulation of such companies. Those reflections were contained in the concept note prepared by the Working Group for consideration at the current session of the open-ended intergovernmental working group.11 32. Ms. Karska added that the concept note reflected the perspectives and experiences of government officials, experts and civil society representatives, and was the result of extensive consultations held by previous members of the Working Group. The first draft of a possible convention was the basis for that reflection (see A/HRC/15/25, annex), while the concept note was also the outcome of the ongoing research on national legislation referred to above. Moreover, the concept note represented the commitment of the Working Group to advancing a coherent, focused and realistic framework for the consideration of the openended intergovernmental working group. 33. In seeking to achieve the above, the Working Group on mercenaries had distilled its key concerns into the following eight main points: 9 10 11 Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama; Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Uruguay; and France, Hungary, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Morocco, Senegal and Tunisia (A/HRC/27/50); China, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka and the United Arab Emirates (A/HRC/27/50); and Botswana, Ghana, the Gambia, Kenya, Lesotho, Mauritius, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda and Zimbabwe (A/HRC/24/45). Available from www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGMilitary/Session4/WG_MercenariesCN_14Ap ril2015.pdf. 9