A/HRC/36/47 military and security companies may exceptionally use force or firearms. Again, there is no uniformity on the regulation of this issue. 41. While some good examples exist (Azerbaijan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova and the United States of America), most of the reviewed States’ national legislation has no specific rules on the use of high-calibre weapons or special devices and equipment that usually involve lethal force. Only very few States’ national legislation offers details about mandatory training of private military and security company personnel on the use of force and firearms (the Philippines, Uganda and the United States of America, and the States of South America), and even less on the rules of engagement of private military and security company staff (China and the United States of America). 42. The Working Group notes with concern that in most of the cases analysed, the requirements for the use of firearms are generally very diverse and broadly defined, the content of the training for using firearms is vaguely described, regulations on the type and the calibre of firearms that are allowed to be used is usually missing, only very few concrete regulations were found on the use of force and firearms in the light of human rights standards, and only few rules were found to punish the firearms-related behaviour of private military and security company personnel more severely than that of ordinary citizens. Furthermore, although international human rights standards require that firearms be used proportionately, only in self-defence or defence of third persons and in a manner likely to decrease the risk of unnecessary harm, States, with some exceptions, do not provide sufficiently detailed regulations, requirements and procedures for compliance with, and accountability and remedies for violations of, human rights norms in connection with private military and security companies’ possession and use of firearms. G. Accountability 43. Most States have an established system for monitoring the activities of private military and security companies, which is generally administered by the agency that authorizes or licenses such companies and that is in charge of conducting regular inspections.128 However, the monitoring systems are usually very broad, vary in form and content, or lack specifics on the content of monitoring activities and inspections. 129 Determining compliance with the standards of international human rights law and, where applicable, of international humanitarian law is normally not part of the monitoring bodies’ mandate. 44. With very few exceptions, States have no detailed rules on reporting obligations as regards infractions or violations of domestic and/or human rights law committed by private military or security companies. Basically, States do not provide much detail about the nature of infractions or violations that are required to be reported on, 130 and/or they cover only violations of provisions regarding permissible activities, licensing, authorization, recruitment and other administrative processes, which result mostly in administrative sanctions applied by the authorizing or licensing agencies in the form of a warning, a fine, a temporary suspension of the company’s activities, or withdrawal of authorization. 131 Among all the laws analysed, the Working Group found examples of provisions for reporting on or punishing offences or violations related to international human rights law or international humanitarian law only in Colombia, Guatemala, Peru, Switzerland and Tajikistan. 128 129 130 131 14 See, more particularly, the examples of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador and Uruguay, and of the Province of Buenos Aires, as well as the examples of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, New Zealand, the Republic of Moldova and Tajikistan. As was noted by the Working Group, for example, in relation to the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. See, for example, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Senegal. See, for example, the States of francophone Africa, Costa Rica and Guatemala, the States of South America, and Nauru, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.