A/HRC/32/39 security companies during armed conflict was adopted in 2008. It focuses on situations of armed conflict, but can be of broader use, and supports States in their efforts to ensure that such companies comply with international human rights and humanitarian law. It does not create any new legal obligations, and is not necessarily a step towards a new treaty; rather, it serves as a guiding document. Part two of the document identifies good practices aimed at guiding States in the regulation of private military and security companies. As at May 2016, 53 States and 3 international organizations had expressed support for the Montreux Document.21 71. Another voluntary initiative was the development of the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers, a multi-stakeholder initiative aimed at establishing principles and standards for the provision of private security services. In September 2013, it also established an external independent governance and oversight mechanism, the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers’ Association, with the aim of improving accountability in the sector. Its membership has three independent pillars: private security providers, States and intergovernmental organizations, and civil society. The core functions of the Association are the certification of member companies, monitoring and assessment of compliance with the Code itself, and receiving and handling complaints. It enables reviews and follow-up on corporate performance, and can also provide an avenue for third party complaints, although at present that opportunity is very limited as the Association does not have the necessary resources to investigate complaints. The Code applies primarily to the activities of member private security providers in complex environments. However, it is also relevant to other stakeholders in terms of defining expectations and performance standards in relation to contracting policies and practices. C. General observations on the use of force 72. With respect to the use of force, where they provide detail, those frameworks tend to defer to the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. The Basic Principles, in accordance with the definition provided in the commentary to the Code of Conduct, are designed to provide standards for use of force by all officers of the law, whether appointed or elected, who exercise police powers, especially the powers of arrest or detention. 73. However, the Basic Principles do not apply directly to the personnel of private security companies, who do not have official law enforcement powers, unless they have, exceptionally, received such powers from the competent authorities. In particular, they do not apply to private security personnel working for private companies, since they are not carrying out State functions.22 74. The remainder of the present report, however, turns to the question of whether there are specificities relating to the use of force by private security providers in that context, and whether the same standards can be adapted for private security providers operating on behalf of another private corporation. When not in the exceptional circumstance of working directly for the State, private security personnel have the same legal rights and responsibilities as ordinary citizens, but the level of their organization, their asserted 21 22 See www.mdforum.ch/en/participants. Amnesty International, Use of Force: Guidelines for Implementation of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (Amsterdam, Amnesty International, 2015), p. 14. 11