A/HRC/15/25 States to establish domestic licensing regimes where such regimes were likely to differ significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 5. Inherently State functions 82. A number of experts and States stressed that there is no agreed definition in international law on what constitutes inherently governmental functions and considered that defining such functions could prove difficult. 83. Others stated that it was crucial to establish clear standards for PMSCs and their activities given the growing trend towards the delegation of military and security functions to private actors. They said that such an instrument was essential to ensure that the State retains the monopoly on the use of force. Some considered the proposed distinction presented in the draft convention between inherently State functions that cannot be outsourced and services that can be delegated to PMSCs to be satisfactory, while others called for a more restrictive approach. 84. Some recalled that while there is no internationally agreed definition of inherently State functions, certain provisions of international humanitarian law specifically precluded Member States from outsourcing the performance of certain tasks such as the exercise of “the power of the responsible officer over prisoner of war camps or places of internment of civilians” (see article 39 of the Third Geneva Convention; article 99 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). They added that while there is no specific prohibition on the direct participation by civilians in hostilities, their participation would at the least lead to the loss of certain privileges, such as immunity from attack. 6. International oversight and monitoring body 85. A number of comments called for any adjudicatory or grievance mechanism to be established by the convention that should operate with full transparency; others expressed disappointment that the individual right to petition the Committee is only given in respect of those countries that consent to such a process. 86. One State pointed out that the provision regarding the conciliation commission was not sufficiently detailed and did not specify what would happen if a State did not accept the recommendations of the conciliation commission and, if accepted, who would be responsible for implementing these recommendations. Some also thought that a confidential, inter-State dispute resolution mechanism of this type was not necessary to ensure the implementation of the Convention. 87. Other comments cautioned that the need for transparency must not overshadow privacy rights or lead to a freezing of cooperation from the industry itself. 88. Finally some experts raised the point that special attention would need to be paid to ensuring that less developed States have support to strengthen their capacity to regulate PMSCs, both through the technical assistance of the Committee and through funding. IV. Conclusions and recommendations 89. The Working Group takes this opportunity to thank all Member States and non-governmental entities including experts and academics who have engaged with the Working Group on this important endeavour, have provided their expertise throughout this process and submitted constructive comments on the elements for a possible international draft convention on PMSCs. GE.10-15155 17