A/HRC/15/25 provided an effective framework for understanding States’ obligations to regulate PMSCs and hold them accountable. They referred to other existing initiatives, in particular the Montreux Document,11 which recalls existing obligations of States, PMSCs and their personnel under international law whenever PMSCs are present during armed conflict. 74. The industry conveyed to the Working Group that it is seeking to obtain greater clarity vis-à-vis its legal standing and greater validity in its public perception. The industry underlined the importance of having a treaty that enjoys the support of the key players involved in the debate in order to make a positive impact on the enjoyment of human rights by individuals. 3. Scope of the Convention 75. Some of the comments received revolved around the direct applicability of some obligations outlined in the draft convention to PMSCs, i.e. non-State actors. The Working Group considered that the key responsibility should lie with the States parties to the convention and the intergovernmental organizations that would adhere to the instrument. The Working Group clarified this point in its most recent text. 76. A significant number of experts stressed that the scope of the draft convention should seek to be as broad as possible and cover all situations, not only armed conflict, recognizing the ever-evolving range of activities carried out by PMSCs in increasingly diverse situations around the world. This comment was addressed in the draft text. 4. Domestic implementation 77. Some comments emphasized that the mandatory licensing regime established in the draft convention has the advantage that by requiring the consent of both the exporting and importing State, it ensures that all States involved will have effectively given their formal consent to the operations taking place. It would also make it easier to determine which PMSC is operating where and when. 78. Others regretted that the draft text did not specify criteria for awarding licences and that the decision to award licences would remain with States parties. They said that this could lead to situations where licences would be granted to companies that do not abide by international standards. 79. Some pointed out that the convention could go further by proposing that a licensing system be established at the international level, administered by an intergovernmental body. This, they said, would provide a central, directly accessible register, thereby avoiding the need to rely on individual State registries. 80. The idea of the creation of a special fund to compensate victims of crimes committed by PMSC personnel was welcomed by many. Some however emphasized that the draft text could go further with respect to the functioning and methods of work of the fund, such as by defining the notion of “victim”, the amounts for compensation and for States’ contributions, and the existing correlation between the obligations of PMSCs and States to compensate victims. 81. Some States made the point that the proposed legislative regulation, licensing regime, contracting and training requirements, oversight and monitoring outlined in the draft convention might place a high implementation cost on States, which might be a disincentive to ratification. Further, some raised concerns as to usefulness of requiring 11 16 A/63/467 – S/2008/636 of 6 October 2008. GE.10-15155