A/HRC/30/47 comprehensive manner. Another delegation suggested that the draft be discussed among Governments, and not only within an expert body. 36. One delegation pointed out that the work of the Working Group on mercenaries to map existing legislation on private security and military companies might be undermined if it was meant to support a pre-established position that a legally binding instrument was the “best way to ensure adequate protection of human rights” without developing arguments that could highlight the advantages of other options. The same delegation expressed concern about the Working Group’s plan to further elaborate a draft convention, which seemed to go beyond its mandate and risk complicating discussion in the intergovernmental process. Some delegations said that they did not support the draft convention elaborated by the Working Group, which had not met with consensus at the open-ended intergovernmental working group’s first session. They recalled that the mandate of the open-ended intergovernmental working group had been broadened (see A/HRC/22/41, para. 77). Some delegations reiterated that a convention was not necessary, but that there was a need to strengthen domestic laws and their implementation, as well as to see how the International Code of Conduct and other initiatives translated into practice. One delegation noted that the concept note was highly problematic as it took discussions back to those held during the first session of the intergovernmental working group in 2011. The delegation suggested that other options could be explored, including guidelines, possible plans of action, model laws, good practices and mutual legal assistance programmes. 37. The Colombian Commission of Jurists welcomed the concept note as a good starting point, while noting that it was linked to a new set of articles that was not yet available and that could not, therefore, be properly commented upon. 38. In response to questions from delegations, Ms. Karska said that the Working Group was convinced that an international convention would be the best mechanism to regulate the issue of private military and security companies. That did not exclude other options, including guidelines, model laws and legal assistance programmes, which in the opinion of the Working Group were complementary. Gaps in national law still existed and the analysis of the Working Group had not shown much progress in that regard. As such, an international convention would be an effective mechanism for a better implementation of a system of control. Ms. Karska highlighted that the Working Group welcomed all comments and suggestions from States on its concept note, as it sought to finalize its proposed new draft convention by the end of 2015. In that regard, the Chair-Rapporteur of the open-ended intergovernmental working group suggested that any comments should be forwarded to the secretariat by the end of May 2015, for transmission to the Working Group on mercenaries. 39. Delegations discussed the way forward with regard to the elaboration of possible recommendations on the future programme of work for the open-ended intergovernmental working group. Some noted that there was no consensus on any further discussion on the draft convention elaborated by the Working Group on mercenaries and discussed by the intergovernmental working group in 2011. One delegation noted its preference for the recommendations from the session not to refer to the concept note or the possibility of a revised draft convention, while recognizing that the report of the intergovernmental working group would duly reflect what was said by all delegations and speakers. Delegations discussed the mandate of the intergovernmental working group, which one delegation said was to look into elaborating a new instrument, while another said that it did not call specifically for the drafting of a legally binding treaty but rather to considering the possibility of elaborating an international regulatory framework. One delegation mentioned that the intergovernmental working group had not explored the range of options; instead, there seemed to be an attempt to discuss a draft on which there was no consensus. 11