A/HRC/24/45 the training of security officers in Namibia and promote the standard of such training. 10 Under that Act, the Minister may also establish regulations relating to the training of security officers.11 The South African Private Security Industry Regulation Act provides that the Authority shall, among other things, promote high standards in the training of security service providers and prospective security service providers. 12 50. It appears from this research that the respect for international human rights and humanitarian laws has not been recognized as an important element in selecting PMSC personnel. On the basis of information available to the Working Group, none of the countries takes into account any records or reports of human rights violations committed by PMSC personnel in determining whether or not to select the concerned individual. Similarly, none of the countries has legislation specifically requiring personnel of PMSCs to be adequately trained on international humanitarian law and human rights law. 6. Ratification of regional and international instruments on mercenaries 51. None of the countries under review have ratified the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, although Nigeria is a signatory State. Insofar as the definition of mercenaries is concerned, the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) defines “mercenary” in article 47, paragraph 2. Botswana acceded to Protocol I in 1979, Lesotho acceded in 1994, Namibia in 1994, South Africa and Swaziland ratified it in 1995 and Zimbabwe in 1992. This means that these countries are legally bound to implement the Protocol. 52. According to the status list for those countries that have ratified the 1977 Organization of African Unity Convention for the Elimination of Mercenarism in Africa, only the Gambia, Ghana, Lesotho, Nigeria and Zimbabwe have ratified the Convention. However, the countries that have ratified the Convention do not seem to have any laws that effectively implement it within their domestic jurisdiction. IV. Conclusion and recommendations 53. The research on domestic legislation on PMSCs shows that the various African States analysed in this study have responded to the privatization of security differently. Given the absence of a legally binding international instrument on PMSCs, there is little guidance on how effectively to address the phenomenon of the privatization of security. This has resulted in divergent regulatory approaches at the national level, creating regulatory gaps in some respects. 54. The manner in which the countries’ laws are framed reflects the challenges that the privatization of security poses in the various States. Countries such as South Africa, which faced the phenomenon whereby its nationals with extensive military skills and experience provided military and security services abroad and some of whom became involved in mercenary activities, responded by enacting legislation specifically prohibiting mercenary activities and the export of military and security services, as well as regulating PMSCs within the domestic sphere. In other countries, where the private security industry mostly focuses on more traditional guarding of persons or properties, the laws have not yet evolved to address these challenges. 10 11 12 12 S 4 (c) of the Security Enterprises and Security Officers Amendment Act, 2001. S 38(1)(c) of the Security Enterprises and Security Officers Amendment Act, 2001. S 3(j) of the Private Security Industry Regulation Act, 2001.