A/HRC/36/36 20. Noting the divergent views, the Chair-Rapporteur asked for the different formulations to be presented in one document, which was subsequently circulated to the delegations. The Chair-Rapporteur stressed that if consensus could not be reached by the end of the second day of the session then she would put the different formulations to a vote as she felt that that was the most democratic way to proceed. Delegations said they preferred to work towards a consensus text that could be presented to the Council as the recommendations and conclusions of the open-ended intergovernmental working group. 21. After a period of reflection and negotiation on 23 May 2017, delegations were able to propose a consensus text that took into account the different positions that had been articulated. The revised formulation (see section V, below) streamlined the text that had been discussed earlier and resolved the question of how to refer to the relevant stakeholders with relevant expertise who could assist the open-ended intergovernmental working group in its subsequent work. 22. Prior to the adoption of the conclusions and recommendations on 24 May 2017, the representative of Egypt had affirmed the country’s commitment to the mandate given to the open-ended intergovernmental working group regarding its commitment to the human rights standards agreed upon in international human rights law. The representative also affirmed the commitment of Egypt to the United Nations and international documents to which it was party and welcomed efforts exerted by delegations to reach consensus on the draft conclusions and recommendations. With a view to supporting those efforts, Egypt decided to go along with the consensus on the proposed text, while reaffirming its understanding that paragraph 28 (b) below was restricted to inviting the Co-Chairs of the Montreux Document Forum to contribute to the discussion on the regulatory framework within the open-ended intergovernmental working group to be established by virtue of the recommendations detailed in section V below and stressing that Egypt was not committed to any document or process to which it was not a party and had not contributed to its preparation. The representative requested that the position of Egypt be reflected in the present report. 23. The representative of India joined the consensus and also supported the process. However, the representative expressed concern over the inclusion of the term “industry” in paragraph 28 (b) of the recommendations, below. The representative suggested that paragraph 28 (b) should finish after the term “relevant expertise”, since the rest of the sentence was not necessary. References to the Montreux Document Forum and the International Code of Conduct Association were not acceptable to India because both those references were included within the meaning of the phrase “other stakeholders”. The representative requested that the position of India be reflected in the present report and noted that Algeria joined the statement. 24. The representative of Brazil fully joined the consensus around the conclusions and recommendations of the open-ended intergovernmental working group. Private military and security companies did not operate in a legal vacuum and the Montreux Document provided a compilation of relevant international human rights law and international humanitarian law applicable to their work. Nevertheless, it was clear that the absence of a legally binding international instrument imposed greater challenges on monitoring and supervising the activities of private military and security companies, and exposed those living in territorial States to the increased likelihood of human rights abuses. Therefore, Brazil considered that negotiating an international legally binding instrument was not only desirable, but also necessary. Following the constructive suggestion of the Chair-Rapporteur, the open-ended intergovernmental working group had decided to freeze that discussion in order to move forward. Brazil supported that conciliatory and constructive approach and expected that the goodwill to engage in meaningful discussions and negotiations on substantive issues aimed at confidence-building and reaching consensus would last until the open-ended intergovernmental working group concluded its important task. The representative of Brazil expressed confidence that the open-ended intergovernmental working group could move forward and provide all societies with an outcome document that adequately addressed the relevant challenges faced in relation to the regulation of activities performed by private military and security companies. 8