A/HRC/36/47 trend seen is that those few States that regulate this 102 usually prohibit active or former members of the police and the armed forces from taking part in private military and security companies’ activities. However, the national legislation of the majority of States in the regions that were reviewed remains silent on this point, which is concerning. 33. The inconsistent regulation on permitted activities, the difference in the scope of prohibited activities, the lack of a clear dividing line between the functions of private military and security companies and law enforcement authorities, and the lack of rules on direct participation in hostilities, especially considering the growing role of private military and security companies in armed conflicts, post-conflict situations and low-intensity armed conflict situations, all increase the risks of ineffective control of these companies’ activities and the potential for human rights abuses. This gives rise to challenges of enforcement, accountability and the availability of remedies. E. Rules on acquisition of weapons 34. The research found rather scarce information in this field, which focused mainly on the varying means of legal acquisition of weapons. The Working Group notes that, in general, States allow the acquisition and possession of weapons for personnel of private military and security companies, though under very different conditions — even within the reviewed regions. For example, in some countries, personnel of private security companies are allowed to be armed and to possess weapons as determined by the relevant laws and regulations,103 but elsewhere those personnel protecting people cannot be armed or perform guard services.104 In some countries, special permits are required for the acquisition and possession of weapons and firearms105 (and in certain countries the permit to carry firearms must indicate the activities for which the weapon or firearm will be used). 106 In others, permission to carry weapons is subject to having undergone training, 107 or to specific competence,108 and there are other States again where only the acquisition and possession of special types of weapons and firearms is licensed or permitted or prohibited.109 Examples were also found of countries in which private security service providers are not allowed to use firearms 110 or where the number of firearms or weapons is limited per company. 111 Some States also require specific measures for storing and depositing weapons. 112 35. The Working Group found that most States had varying regulation regarding the legal acquisition and possession of weapons by private security companies. Only a few States addressed the issue of illegal acquisition and possession of weapons and had provisions concerning penalties. Those States113 covered the subject of illegal acquisition and possession of weapons in their Criminal Codes 114 and Arms Export Control Acts.115 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 12 For example, the reviewed States of South America, Australia and Nauru, the majority of the francophone African States analysed, and France and Hungary. Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, France, Morocco and Tunisia. Chile, Mali and Peru. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malaysia, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, and the States of South America. Côte d’Ivoire and Mali. Pakistan, the Philippines and Singapore. Sri Lanka. For example, in Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mali and the Republic of Moldova. In South American States, the general rule is that prohibited firearms cannot be used, or that the use of certain firearms is restricted to the police or the armed forces. Plurinational State of Bolivia. Chile, Colombia and Ecuador. Cameroon and Tunisia, and the States of South America. Australia, Tajikistan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Uzbekistan. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Australia, Tunisia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.