A/HRC/36/47 military company or private security company carrying out activities in a foreign country could be subjected to criminal prosecution as well. 10. Various States in Latin America27 have specific registration systems at the national level for private security companies. Cameroon, Pakistan, the Philippines and Sri Lanka also have similar regulatory provisions. The Province of Buenos Aires also requires the supervisory authority to keep a registry of the persons authorized to provide private security services, and also of persons who have been rejected for infractions. 28 11. With regard to the licensing and selection process, four States in Asia (China, the Philippines, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates) require licensing for a company providing private security services, and for individual security personnel or employees. 29 The requirement for personnel of private security companies to obtain licences can be an important vetting mechanism to ensure that qualified persons are employed, but also that persons with past convictions relating to human rights abuses are excluded. As for the relationship between the licensing and selection process and human rights standards, the Working Group notes that according to the Swiss legislation, “competent authorities” can decide to prohibit, wholly or partially, certain activities because they may be contrary to the aims of the law, including services that may be used to commit human rights violations. Another good example is the legislation of the Province of Buenos Aires, where private security companies are prohibited from having partners that have benefited from amnesties and been indicted for human rights violations, and a certificate issued by the competent human rights authorities is required as proof.30 In Guatemala, candidates who have served in the army, the national civilian police, the government intelligence services or another private security company must prove that if they were dismissed it was not because they committed a crime or a human rights violation. 12. Good examples of references to international human rights and humanitarian law standards in the training of personnel of private security companies are found in the Swiss legislation, which requires companies to train their personnel in applicable national and international law, including on fundamental rights. Reference to “human rights” appears several times in Brazilian legislation, in which it is stated that training must cover preservation of the physical integrity of persons confronted with the use of force in their work, in accordance with the principles of human rights advocated by the United Nations. 31 El Salvador, Guatemala,32 Mexico33 and Colombia34 require a private security company to offer training on human rights to its personnel. Colombia refers to a special training programme involving international humanitarian law. 35 13. In the United States, Congress established a legislative framework in the National Defense Authorization Act requiring the Department of Defense, in coordination with the Department of State, to be in charge of the licensing of private military and security companies and to prescribe regulations on the selection, training, equipping and conduct of 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. Also Pakistan, the Philippines and Sri Lanka, and the Province of Buenos Aires. Act. No. 12.297. Regarding China, see Order of the State Council No. 564, Regulation on the Administration of Security and Guarding Services, of 2009. Regarding the Philippines, see the Private Security Agency Law, 1969 (Act No. 5487), as amended by Presidential Decree No. 11, 1972, and, subsequently, by Presidential Decrees No. 100, of 1973, and No. 1919, of 1984. Regarding Singapore, see the Private Security Industry Act, 2007 (Act No. 38). Regarding the United Arab Emirates, see Federal Decree No. 37, of 2006, concerning Private Security Companies (art. 11, which provides that the company may not contract a security employee until it has obtained the approval of the competent authorities and fulfilled the restrictions and conditions specified in the law’s executive regulations). Act No. 12.297, art. 8 (2); and Acts No. 23.492 and No. 23.521. Ordinance No. 3233, annexes; Act. No. 7102/1983, art. 16; and Ordinance No. 3233/2012, art. 155 (VI). Act No. 51/2010, art. 51 (c). Art. 25 (VIII), federal law of 2006. Act No. 365/1994, art. 74. Act. No. 2974/1997, art. 21. 5