A/HRC/45/9 (art. 13) and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (art. 12). The Universal Declaration further provides for the right to seek and to enjoy asylum (art. 14). The principle of non-refoulement, contained in international human rights, refugee, humanitarian and customary law with some variation in scope, prohibits the transfer of all persons to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be at risk of irreparable harm, including persecution, torture or ill-treatment, or other serious human rights violations. Protection from collective expulsions is provided in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 17 and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (art. 22). International human rights law and international refugee law place narrow restrictions on the resort to deprivation of liberty of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, and encourage the use of non-custodial alternatives to detention.18 27. Under the international human rights framework, States retain their obligations when they privatize the delivery of services that may have an impact on the enjoyment of human rights, including when they contract out to the private commercial sector activities involving the use of force and the detention of persons. 19 States should protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including private companies, and take positive steps to fulfil human rights. Specifically, they must ensure that “any delegation of border management functions to private actors … does not undermine human rights”, and that “private actors engaged by the State in migration governance are held accountable” for human rights abuses. 20 In so doing, States must take appropriate measures “to prevent, punish, investigate or redress the harm caused by … acts of private persons or entities”.21 28. In the case of private military and security companies, States have a duty to act appropriately to meet these obligations by, inter alia, adopting or amending legislation and regulatory frameworks, and establishing or strengthening national oversight mechanisms. In reality, States often overlook these duties when it comes to private military and security companies, as noted by the Working Group in its 2017 global study of 60 States, in which it concluded that national regulation of these companies is generally weak or non-existent and accountability is severely lacking (A/HRC/36/47). Companies operating in immigration and border management may, however, fall within the scope of immigration laws or regulations.22 29. In the absence of an international legally binding instrument for the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the activities of private military and security companies, two main initiatives have been developed to raise standards within the industry: the Montreux Document on pertinent international legal obligations and good practices for States related to operations of private military and security companies during armed conflict (2008); and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (2010). Both initiatives, however, have notable gaps in relation to the immigration and border 17 18 19 20 21 22 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, para. 13. See A/HRC/30/37; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person; joint general comment No. 4 of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families / No. 23 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2017) on State obligations regarding the human rights of children in the context of international migration in countries of origin, transit, destination and return; and Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (art. 31). A/HRC/17/31, commentary to guiding principle No. 5. See also Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 24 (2017) on State obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities, para. 22; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 8; and Cabal and Pasini Bertran v. Australia (CCPR/C/78/D/1020/2001), para. 7.2. See www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Migration/OHCHR_Recommended_Principles_ Guidelines.pdf, guideline 2.12; and www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Migration/ PrinciplesAndGuidelines.pdf, principle 1, guideline 6. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31, para. 8. For example, Estonia, Obligation to Leave and Prohibition on Entry Act (submission on behalf of the Chancellor of Justice, Estonia). 7