A/HRC/10/14 page 14 Licensing 55. The draft framework convention on international arms transfers5 states that contracting parties should establish authorization and licensing mechanisms under their national laws, as necessary, in order to ensure that the requirements of the convention may be effectively applied, with each application being reviewed individually.6 At both national and regional level, arms control licensing procedures are already taking place in many places around the world, and the Working Group believes that Governments should extend this to the export of military and security services. 56. As mentioned in the Working Group’s report to the General Assembly, the European Union also has a European Code of Conduct which contains a list of prohibited destinations and a system for verifying and monitoring the use of arms, and establishes an information sharing and consultation system on granting national export licences. Although the Code of Conduct is non-binding on the States parties and does not have an enforcement mechanism, it defines eight criteria that must be addressed by States in cases of arms exports, including the respect for EU member States’ international commitments, in particular to Security Council sanctions, and human rights in the destination country. 57. Nineteen members of the Organization of American States have signed the Inter-American Convention on Transparency in Conventional Weapons Acquisitions, an agreement on conventional arms transfers which requires signatories to annually disclose information on major arms imports and exports. However, it does not have a registration or licensing system, either for arms or military and security services. 58. The Working Group is also considering devising or promoting the use of a model data or set of information on private military and security companies, in order to obtain the information required for policy development. Such a data set, essentially a map of all the information that would be required to have a full picture of the private military and security company industry, would enable stakeholders to consider systematically all information, and be a useful tool for policy development. Accountability mechanisms 59. As set out in its report to the General Assembly, the Working Group is of the view that in order for any regulation mechanism to be implemented for private military and security companies, enforcement mechanisms should be put in place. Minimum obligatory transparency criteria for private military and security companies should be formulated, which may require them to annually submit data on the main parameters of their actual current structure, contracts and operations. Domestic criminal law could play a role in enforcing these regulations. Accountability of individuals and companies providing security or military services must be ensured under all circumstances and wherever they are carried out. 5 See http://www.iansa.org/documents/2004/att_0504.pdf. 6 See http://www.iansa.org/documents/2004/att_0504.pdf, Commentary, Note (2).