A/HRC/36/47 outside of their States of registration and origin, the lack of extraterritorial application of the laws concerned, and the missing provisions on the export of security and military services, are significant impediments to accountability and to the availability of judicial remedies in the home State. The lack of a dedicated body responsible for the licensing, registration, vetting and monitoring of private military and security companies is also problematic. 52. The global study has shown that reference to international human rights and international humanitarian law standards in licensing and authorization procedures is not a common practice. Neither is the exclusion of applicants from consideration for licensing and authorization for private military and security services who have a record of human rights violations. The study also shows an absence of vetting mechanisms or training on international human rights law and international humanitarian law for the licensing of individuals. Taking into account the nature of private military and security company activities and their potential effect on their environment, it is highly risky not to have a standard system of licensing and authorization that refers to international human rights law and international humanitarian law. 53. The Working Group notes that, in general, States have detailed selection criteria and place emphasis on the necessity of providing training to staff. However, there is a lack of uniformity in the laws reviewed with regard to the selection requirements and to the content of the training of private military and security company personnel. The reviewed national legislation uses a diverse set of selection criteria and often focuses on form and procedural conditions rather than on content. Also, regulations on the training of private military and security company personnel vary significantly in terms of mandatory and optional trainings, their content, their duration, and references to international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Apart from a few exceptions, the laws reviewed do not include in their selection and/or training procedures any references to international human rights law or international humanitarian law, nor do they take into account any records or reports of human rights violations committed by private military or security company personnel in determining whether or not to select the individual concerned. 54. There were also weaknesses in the requirements regarding the training and qualifications of private security company personnel, especially when only a relatively low level of education is required. It is essential to have minimum standards in both respects, which ensure that personnel acquire basic knowledge and internalize human rights standards as the ethical and legal framework for private military and security activities. They must act responsibly in situations involving possible legitimate use of force, especially since all regulations permit the use of weapons. 55. The legislation reviewed varied among the States with regard to the legal acquisition and possession of weapons by private security companies and the research shows that only very few States address the question of the illegal acquisition and possession of weapons, and its consequences. The Working Group notes the high risk of human rights violations resulting from the wide access by personnel of private military and security companies to weapons and firearms. The lack of standard methods for private military and security companies, and the lack of regulation on such companies and their personnel, as regards not only the legal but also the illegal acquisition of weapons, and trafficking in firearms, may result in increased risks of human rights abuses and a lack of accountability for related offences. 56. While much of the States’ legislation analysed has a system established for monitoring the activities of private military and security companies, the monitoring systems are usually very broad, vary in form and content, or completely lack specific rules on the content of monitoring activities and inspections. The study shows that in general, national legislation does not explicitly make compliance with the standards of international human rights law and international humanitarian law the subject of monitoring bodies. The Working Group also notes that the vast majority of States have no detailed legislation on reporting obligations for infractions or violations of domestic and/or human rights law committed by private military and security companies. The Working Group found provisions for reporting on or punishing offences or violations related to international human rights law or international humanitarian law in very few countries. Also, very few 16