A/HRC/36/47 36. The legislation reviewed depicts a variety of regulations regarding the legal acquisition and possession of weapons by private security companies, and the research shows that only very few States address the question of illegal acquisition and possession of weapons and its consequences. The Working Group notes that the wide access by personnel of private military and security companies to weapons and firearms, and the lack of standard methods and regulation of such companies and their personnel in relation to both the legal and the illegal acquisition of weapons and also to trafficking in firearms, may result in increased risks of human rights abuses and of lack of accountability for related offences. F. Use of force and firearms 37. The regulation on the use of force varies among States. Some States are silent, for instance, on the use of firearms by private military and security providers, while a number of States regulate this. Whereas certain States request personnel of private military and security companies to meet specific regulations, developed exclusively for such companies,116 others are satisfied with private security companies’ staff meeting the rules governing the use of firearms by the population at large. 117 38. The Working Group notes that regarding the question of allowing or prohibiting private military and security company personnel to use force and firearms, the reviewed countries’ legislation typically follows two approaches. Some choose to allow private security company personnel to carry and use firearms under certain conditions, 118 while others opt for prohibiting the use of firearms 119 and provide a list of exception clauses with certain conditions.120 39. Most of the States reviewed in the Asian and Central and South American regions allow private security company personnel to carry and use firearms, but require specific licences, permits, authorizations or registration, 121 including information about the ownership of the weapon, 122 or define certain activities (such as duty 123 or travel 124) and places (e.g. where security and guard services are provided by contract 125), during which and where the firearm is allowed to be used. Some of these States specifically note that private military and security companies are prohibited from using undue force 126 or from using force when it is not strictly necessary.127 40. States that choose the prohibition as the general rule (and those few whose relevant national legislation was available for analysis) provide exceptions for the use of force and firearms by private military and security company staff, such as legitimate defence (e.g. Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, the Republic of Moldova and the United States of America), necessity or exigency (Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova and the United States of America) or both (Hungary and Switzerland). Some of these States (Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova and the United States of America) provide legislation on the conditions under which private 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Morocco and Uganda. For example, in Lesotho and Mauritius. As the Working Group saw from the global analysis, most reviewed States of the Latin American and Asian regions follow this path. The Gambia and Nigeria. For example, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Gambia, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Nigeria, the Republic of Moldova, Switzerland and the United States of America. See, for example, the legislation of Cuba, Malaysia, Singapore and Sri Lanka. For example, in El Salvador and Panama. In general, in all reviewed Central American countries. For example, in Panama. In the national legislation of South American States. Guatemala. Costa Rica. 13