A/HRC/36/47 and Hungary,48 prohibit former police or military personnel, those in the national security services performing official duties, and individuals who are not such staff but contribute to related official duties, from participating in private military and security companies’ activities. 17. On the use of force and firearms, the reviewed States typically follow two approaches. Some choose to allow private security company personnel to carry and use firearms under certain conditions, 49 and others opt for prohibiting the use of firearms and provide a list of exception clauses with guarantees. 50 The United States generally prohibits personnel of private military and security companies from using force, but lists exceptions and conditions under which the use of force is allowed. Furthermore, “contractor personnel are only authorized to use deadly force in self-defence”51 and “when such force reasonably appears necessary to execute their security mission to protect assets/persons”.52 Other good examples are from Kyrgyzstan and the Republic of Moldova, where the laws specify circumstances under which the use of firearms or special devices is justified: firearms may be used in defence against an impending attack that threatens human life or health, against a group attack or armed assault against protected property, to restrain individuals showing armed resistance, or to fire a warning shot in the air. The law of the Republic of Moldova includes further provisions: the security personnel or detective must issue a prior warning regarding his or her intention to use force. 18. Regarding training on the rules of engagement and the use of force, some States, including China, the Philippines and Uganda, govern the circumstances under which private security service providers may use firearms. The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Azerbaijan provide rules on the use of high-calibre weapons or special devices that usually involve lethal force. Personnel of private security companies are prohibited from patrolling and carrying arms that are normally reserved for the military and the police, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The United States law specifies that contractor personnel can only be armed for individual self-defence based on national and international law53 and if “weapons familiarization, qualification, and briefings regarding the rules for the use of force have been provided”.54 III. Gaps in national legislation 19. Notwithstanding the good practices mentioned, the global study showed that regulatory gaps were prominent. A. Scope of application 20. The global study shows that with the exception of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (which adopts a self-regulatory approach within the framework of the British Association of Private Security Companies), and Kenya and 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Act CXXXIII of 2005, art. 2. As the Working Group saw from the global analysis, most of the States reviewed from the Asian and Latin American regions followed this path. 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. 48 Code of Federal Regulations, chap. 2 (10-1-11 edition), (b) General, (3) (i); and Federal Acquisition Regulation, 52.225-19, Contractor Personnel in a Designated Operational Area or Supporting a Diplomatic or Consular Mission Outside the United States, General, (ii) (B) (3) (i). 48 Code of Federal Regulations, chap. 2 (10-1-11 edition), (b) General, (3) (ii); and Federal Acquisition Regulation, 52.225-19, Contractor Personnel in a Designated Operational Area or Supporting a Diplomatic or Consular Mission Outside the United States, General, (ii) (B) (3) (ii). Department of Defense instruction No. 3020.41, 20 December 2011, part 4 (e) 2 (a). Ibid., part 4 (e) 2 (b). 7