A/HRC/36/47 45. It is also worrying that only in very few States does national legislation 132 expressly provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations committed by private military and security companies. In addition, the Working Group notes with particular concern the laws of India and Pakistan, which even include provisions for immunity for violations committed in “good faith” and exempt the persons involved from liability for indemnities. The global analysis shows that only very few States’ national legislation (China, Pakistan, the Philippines and Switzerland) contain provisions on any forms of remedy for victims. 46. Without a proper and standardized monitoring mechanism for the activities of private military and security companies and an effective reporting, sanctioning and remedy system related to violations of the law, including human rights law, there is the risk that private military and security companies and their personnel in the countries of origin, registration and operation are not held accountable and liable for the human rights violations they commit during their operations. 47. The Working Group also notes that the absence of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the majority of jurisdictions studied is a significant impediment to accountability and to the availability of judicial remedy in the home State, considering the transnational nature of companies, particularly large companies, within the private military and security industry. 48. Additionally, with regard to territorial States, there is a lack of uniformity in national legislation on measures to assure mutual legal assistance, which can also impede accountability and access to remedies. Many States, for example, will not extradite their own nationals. Some States will only extradite where the offence in the seeking State is also an offence in the sending State. IV. Analysis 49. Considering the transnational nature of private security and military services, as well as the generally significant likelihood of use of force by personnel of such companies and of their involvement in hostilities, the Working Group stresses that the different approaches and regulatory gaps demonstrated in the present study create potential risks to human rights, including the right to life, the right to security, prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, prohibition of torture and of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right of victims to effective remedies. Regulatory gaps in national legislation can also provide incentives for misconduct and human rights violations by personnel of private military and security companies, and may result in serious undermining of the rule of law and of the effective functioning of democratic State institutions responsible for ensuring public safety. 50. The results of the global study clearly indicate the challenges that the privatization of security poses to various States. Most of the regulations analysed do not address military-like activities or private military and security companies directly. This is despite the fact that private companies are normally involved in various other activities as well, besides security, such as military services, use of force, armed conflicts and other complex scenarios such as the so-called war on drugs, or they often participate in hostilities in other ways. If it does not cover all activities that are actually carried out by private military and security companies, national legislation may overlook certain private military and security company activities that include an increased risk of human rights violations undertaken by private actors. Further, the global study shows that only very few States’ legislation deals with military and security services provided abroad or provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction. 51. It is therefore useful to define, in terms of classifications, the activities or services of a company. These classifications can be used to assess which activities increase the risk of human rights violations when undertaken by private actors. The fact that companies provide a variety of military and security services across borders, the general likelihood of private military and security company personnel’s use of force and involvement in hostilities 132 Such as in Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Morocco and Tunisia. 15