A/HRC/36/36 address the abuses and provide remedies to victims. The discussions in the previous sessions had also provided an overview of the gaps and areas in which more efforts were required by the international community. In view of that background, the draft programme of work developed for the sixth session consisted of reflections on previous sessions, including areas of convergence and mapping of processes and initiatives, and on challenges and areas in which additional efforts were needed. Furthermore, the sixth session was devoted to drafting conclusions and recommendations by the intergovernmental working group for submission to the Council. She thanked all delegations for their continued active engagement in that process and looked forward to a fruitful sixth session. III. Discussion document 10. Prior to the start of the sixth session, the Chair-Rapporteur had submitted a discussion document on an international regulatory framework on the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the activities of private military and security companies, which contained the following elements: 1. 2. Definitions and interpretations (a) Private military and security companies; (b) Private security companies; (c) Private military companies; (d) Complex environments. Objectives of the regulatory framework (a) To ensure respect for human rights by the private military and security industry operating in complex situations; (b) To ensure the transparent use of the private military and security industry; (c) To ensure that the activities carried out by such private military and security companies do not have a negative impact on the rights of individuals. 3. Principles (a) Effectiveness, namely that the regulatory framework must have a genuine, significant and positive impact on performance, rather than just offering process without substantive change and, to that end, it must be based on third party rather than selfregulation; (b) Inclusiveness, namely that the regulatory framework must have an impact on the performance of all companies and not just those companies that are already achieving appropriate standards, although perhaps not in a fully measurable and independently verifiable manner; (c) Transparency through robust, independent processes that address broader concerns about the integrity of voluntary or self-regulatory systems; (d) Affordability, namely that regulation must be proportionate to operational needs and companies should only have to demonstrate conformity with one accepted and recognized standard. 4. Contracting States (a) To determine which military/security services States cannot contract out; (b) To establish a procurement process for private military companies and private security companies that incorporates an assessment of a company’s capacity to perform services in accordance with the law, including robust selection criteria; 4