A/HRC/36/36 IV. Reflection on previous sessions of the open-ended intergovernmental working group and discussion on the way forward 11. In their general statements at the beginning of the sixth session, delegations expressed their wish to move forward in a spirit of consensus and cooperation. They remarked that the informal consultation held on 15 May 2017, in anticipation of the sixth session, had been useful and had enabled delegations to reduce differences on a number of outstanding issues. Delegations also expressed gratitude for the discussion document that had been circulated after the informal consultation, and for the compilation of recommendations made by the open-ended intergovernmental working group during its previous five sessions. 12. Delegations agreed on the importance of prevention and protection against human rights abuses and highlighted the importance of oversight and accountability in that area. The private military and security companies industry was evolving quickly and a range of obligations existed for States. The private sector wanted legal certainty and victims and human rights defenders needed reliable access to remedies through judicial or non-judicial mechanisms. They emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder participation in determining the way forward, but agreed that States were the primary decision makers in the context of the open-ended intergovernmental working group. There had been agreement during the previous five sessions regarding the need to improve regulation of private military and security companies and address abuses perpetrated by such companies. Since 2011, States had made progress in analysing and addressing issues related to the operation and regulation of private military and security companies. Progress had also been made in relation to the steps that contracting States, home States, territorial States, and States of nationality should take. States could be mutually supportive by drawing on each other’s experiences, guidelines, action plans, good practices, mutual legal assistance programmes and template agreements. They hoped that the sixth session would provide a forum to focus on what the problems were and what strategies were working to address them. 13. Some delegations said that it was key for any new regulatory framework to be based on and complement existing processes, mechanisms, legislation and initiatives, such as the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers and the International Code of Conduct Association; the Montreux Document on pertinent international legal obligations and good practices for States related to operations of private military and security companies during armed conflict and the Montreux Document Forum; the Legislative Guidance Tool for States to Regulate Private Military and Security Companies and the Contract Guidance Tool for Private Security prepared by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces; and international standard ISO-18788:2015, which provides a framework for establishing, implementing, operating, monitoring, reviewing, maintaining and improving the management of security operations. 2 They also referred to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (A/HRC/17/31, annex) and the Accountability and Remedy Project of OHCHR, including the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on improving accountability and access to remedy for victims of business-related human rights abuse (A/HRC/32/19 and Corr.1 and A/HRC/32/19/Add.1). 14. Some delegations were unconvinced of the need for a legally binding instrument and considered that there was no consensus on moving forward on the creation of such an instrument. However, they considered that the development of an international regulatory framework was in the interest of all stakeholders; further work would be needed to determine the form such a framework could take. There was widespread agreement on the need to improve the conduct of private military and security companies and address abuses whenever they occurred. They referred to the consensus on the distinctions between private military companies and private security companies and noted that each of those types of companies raised their own challenges. They urged the open-ended intergovernmental 2 6 www.iso.org/standard/63380.html.