A/HRC/18/32 C. Encouraging States to adopt national legislation on private military and security companies 73. Although an international regulatory framework is to be developed over the next few years, national measures will be critical to ensure effective regulation of private military and security companies. This is envisaged in the draft convention, which provides that States parties should establish a comprehensive domestic regime of regulation and oversight over the activities in its territory of private military and security companies and their personnel, including all foreign personnel, in order to prohibit and investigate illegal activities as defined by the convention and by relevant national laws. 74. Very few States have adopted national legislation on private military and security companies; some States have even excluded the possibility of adoption of national legislation and favoured self-regulation by the industry instead. For instance, the Government of the United Kingdom announced in Parliament in March 2011 that it would seek to establish a code of conduct setting out national standards derived from the International Code of Conduct, and to monitor and audit compliance of private military and security companies based in the United Kingdom. However, the Government does not consider it necessary to pass legislation to regulate private military and security companies. 75. While there is currently no specific international requirement that States should adopt national legislation on private military and security companies, the Working Group recommends that States adopt such legislation, particularly when they are contracting States, States on whose territory such companies operate or States on whose territory these companies are established. It recalls that States have international legal obligations relating to private military and security companies and that the most effective way for States to implement such obligations is through the adoption of legislation. 76. Drawing from the experience of its many country visits, the Working Group reached the conclusion that it is only through comprehensive national legislation that States can ensure adequate monitoring and oversight over the activities of private military and security companies. Such legislation should address such specific issues as vetting of companies and employees, licensing, training requirements, regular reporting and monitoring, regular audits and/or inspections, complaints mechanisms and so on. 77. The adoption of national legislation is of course only a first step towards the establishment of a comprehensive domestic regime of regulation and oversight over the activities of private military and security companies. Even where States have adopted specific legislation to address the phenomenon of private military and security companies, they have encountered challenges in the implementation of such legislation. As is discussed below, prosecutions under the legislation have proved especially difficult for a variety of reasons. D. Holding private military and security companies accountable for human rights violations 78. The purpose of efforts to develop an international regulatory framework for private military and security companies and national regimes of regulation is ultimately to prevent human rights violations and ensure the accountability of the companies and individuals involved in such violations when they occur. The Working Group has noted, however, that prosecutions of these companies and their employees remain rare. Prosecutions have proved difficult for a variety of reasons, such as jurisdictional issues when the company was operating as part of, or in the context of, the military forces deployed to a country, lack of detailed and consistent reporting of incidents involving the companies, and difficulties in the collection of evidence, compounded by the fact that incidents often occur in conflict areas. In States where private military and security companies are operating, issues such as 17