A/HRC/30/47 remained one of the central challenges, and he highlighted the clear mandate of the working group in that regard. 10. At its first meeting, on 27 April 2015, the open-ended intergovernmental working group adopted its agenda (A/HRC/WG.10/4/1) and programme of work. 11. One delegation commended the Chair-Rapporteur for his ability to get consensus in the past and referred in particular to paragraph 77 of A/HRC/22/41, but regretted that the sponsor of the resolutions presented at the twenty-second and twenty-eighth sessions of the Human Rights Council had disregarded the potential for consensus and had opted instead to divide the Council, with a view to discussing a draft convention on which there had been no consensus in 2011. The same delegation pointed to the underlying question as to why some delegations invested in building consensus during sessions of the open-ended intergovernmental working group if that consensus was meant to be undermined with a voted resolution. It also regretted that its request to invite stakeholders to provide updates on recent developments in the processes on the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers and the Montreux Document had not been met. Some delegations noted that paragraph 77 set forth the scope of the mandate of the working group and the basis for continued cooperation. 12. Some delegations highlighted the need for victims to have the right to an effective remedy, including reparations, and for an international legally binding instrument in addition to national initiatives on the activities of private military and security companies. Those delegations indicated that such companies, given their specificities, should not be allowed to regulate their own behaviour, which could only be done by an independent authority. In their opinion, the current normative framework, including the Montreux Document and the International Code of Conduct, failed to address the complexities of the problem, nor did they establish proper mechanisms for accountability, effective remedies for victims, regulation, monitoring and oversight of those entities and their personnel. Some delegations recommended that the open-ended intergovernmental working group begin discussions on concrete elements for inclusion in a legally binding instrument during the fourth session. 13. In that regard, Pakistan indicated that it had submitted draft elements for a possible instrument, based on human rights instruments, the Montreux Document and the International Code of Conduct, the draft which had been prepared by the Working Group on mercenaries.5 The delegation urged the Chair-Rapporteur to present the text of a draft convention based on those elements and the deliberations at the session, for the consideration of States, before the next session. South Africa suggested that norms should be elaborated in international law to (a) define private military and security companies; and (b) hold such companies accountable under international humanitarian and international human rights law. The new instrument should complement national and regional mechanisms, particularly in the area of combating impunity and effective punishment. It should also include mechanisms for recourse in cases of violations. Such mechanisms would include a committee on the regulation, oversight and monitoring of private military and security companies, an enquiry and a complaint procedure and reporting mechanisms on compliance with new norms and standards in international human rights and humanitarian law by private military and security companies. 14. Some delegations added that international regulation must be complemented by effective national laws and policies that would allow States to investigate and prosecute violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. In their view, as a second 5 See www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGMilitary/Session4/Pakistan.pdf. 5