A/HRC/32/39 forthcoming complaints process.43 Whether or not the complaints procedure of the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers’ Association will be able to provide effective access to remedies for victims of human rights abuse by private security providers remains to be seen. 3. Accountability under domestic law 112. Human rights abuses perpetrated by private security personnel can be redressed under criminal law and, in some instances, as part of tort law or the law of delict. That can raise questions regarding the legal personality of companies and the different doctrines applied when establishing corporate liability. Some States, such as the United Kingdom, have explicitly codified corporate criminal liability, while others rely on general tort law and the law of delict to institute civil claims. 113. Nothing should detract from the pursuit of personal criminal liability of the individual perpetrator of the abuse. However, vice versa, the fact that sufficient evidence cannot be gathered to prove a criminal act does not mean that an abuse has not occurred. 114. In certain circumstances the concept of vicarious criminal liability can be helpful. A corporation can be criminally responsible for conduct, distinct from the owners, agents or employees of the corporation. The application of vicarious liability transfers the criminal responsibility for an offence from an agent or employee to the corporation itself, while the agent or employee remains responsible for the crime committed. Essential elements of corporate criminal liability include a special relationship between the agent or employee and the corporation (namely, employment) and the requirement that the crime must have been committed in the performance of duties in terms of that relationship. Attention must also be given to considerations of the liability of parent companies for abuses committed by their subsidiaries.44 115. It should be noted that, given the inherent risks of abuse of rights associated with security work, close attention should be paid to the trigger of liability concerned. It can be argued that private security providers should be held to a modified standard of strict liability as might be expected from a company, for example, handling hazardous waste. Laws should not grant a company the right to exculpate itself from intentional or grossly negligent excessive force resulting in death or serious injury, even if the company can show that the employee concerned was appropriately selected and trained. Without that standard of liability, victims will often have no effective recourse, as the individual perpetrator is often devoid of means. 116. Since many private security providers operate on a global level, the extraterritorial applicability of human rights law, and specifically human rights treaties, is crucial to the regulation of the sector. In the context of business, extraterritorial jurisdiction has in one way or another made its way into a number of policy domains that include anti-corruption, securities regulation, environmental protection and more general civil and criminal jurisdictions, but not in relation to business and human rights (see A/HRC/14/27, para. 46).45 However, international law does not prevent States from extending their jurisdiction 43 44 45 The processes put in place for the reporting, monitoring and assessment of members’ performance in accordance with the code of conduct were established under article 12 of the Association. See G. Skinner, “Parent company accountability: ensuring justice for human rights violations” (International Corporate Accountability Roundtable, November 2015). Available from http://icar.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/PCAP-Report-2015.pdf. See J. Zerk, “Extraterritorial jurisdiction: lessons for the business and human rights sphere from six regulatory areas”, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper No. 59 (Cambridge, MA, 19