A/HRC/22/41 D. General discussion 12. In their initial remarks, a number of delegations emphasized the importance of continuing the discussion on the need to adopt an international legal framework to regulate the activities of PMSCs. Some delegations stated that further discussions were necessary on the need to ensure accountability for human rights and international humanitarian law violations, as well as the right of victims to remedy and reparation, and highlighted the responsibility of States in this respect. Several delegations expressed concern about human rights challenges relating to the private military and security industry, especially since PMSCs increasingly assume functions that were traditionally in the domain of States. It was emphasized that there was a need to distinguish the activities of PMSCs operating in conflict situations from activities of companies operating in peace time, where their activities may pose less challenges for human rights. 13. A number of other delegations, while acknowledging the importance of existing efforts to regulate PMSCs through industry self-regulation or national legislation, expressed the view that a legally binding international regulatory framework is needed. Other delegations expressed the view that it was premature to consider whether an international legally binding instrument is required and that what is needed instead is better implementation of existing international law, as well as improvements in law, regulation and policy at national level. They emphasized that the focus should be on national legislation, complemented by non-binding international initiatives such as 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 (Montreux Document) and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Providers (International Code of Conduct). 14. One delegation expressed concern about the increased use of private military and security companies by the United Nations and called for a zero-tolerance policy with regards to companies involved in human rights violations. III. Discussion on specific topics A. Updates since the first session 15. Faiza Patel, providing an update on behalf of the United Nations Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to selfdetermination, highlighted that while the human rights challenges posed by activities that PMSCs carried out in situations of armed conflict were well-known, they also performed many activities outside of armed conflict situations such as protecting mines, refineries and ships, participating in drug-eradication efforts, providing logistics support to the United Nations or training security forces. These activities, which were often carried out in places where the rule of law is weak and/or where there were conflicts of one sort or another, also posed human rights risks. The international community had to ensure accountability for human rights violations in these contexts as well. 16. Ms. Patel conveyed the Working Group’s view that an international convention was the most efficient solution to the challenge of regulating PMSCs, while noting that she is not committed to a particular text. A smart mix of international regulation, national legislation and enforcement, and industry self-regulation would allow States and other actors to use PMSCs and at the same time ensure that PMSCs respect human rights and are held accountable in case of violations. Although there were some standards in international law applicable to the activities of PMSCs, the regime was far from complete. First, 5