A/HRC/27/50 practice: security companies are required to purchase a bond issued by a reputable insurance company to cover any valid legal claim filed against the company.113 The 2002 Punjab Ordinance also provides for the security company to make arrangements for insurance for its guards.114 The absence of similar provisions in the laws of other States may have implications on the rights of victims of human rights abuses to a remedy. 66. On the other hand, two of the laws examined contain provisions for immunity to the central authorities,115 or any person116 so long as they have acted in good faith. The 2005 India Act exempts the controlling authority of liability for indemnities for anything done in good faith while the 2000 Sindh Ordinance (Pakistan) exempts any person of liability for indemnities for anything done in good faith. IV. Conclusion and recommendations 67. The study of legislation on private military and/or security companies of States in francophone Africa and in Asia highlights the different approaches to the privatization of security. Analysis of the legislation in both regions show a regulatory emphasis on the provision of guard and protection services to persons and property in the domestic sphere. None of the legislation deals with private military companies or adequately addresses the issue of military and security services provided abroad and the extraterritorial applicability of relevant legislation. 68. The transnational nature of private military and security services (PMSC), the high likelihood of the use of force and involvement in hostilities on the part of PMSC personnel and the gaps in regulations and inconsistency of approaches found in the present study underscore the risk that the status quo can seriously undermine the rule of law and the effective functioning of democratic State institutions responsible for ensuring public safety. Furthermore, the regulatory and accountability gaps noted create potential risks to fundamental human rights, such as the right to security and the right to life, as well as the right of victims to effective remedies. The Working Group stresses that the right to security is an inherent human right, which underpins the enjoyment of other rights. 69. The study of the laws and regulations reveals a lack of specific rules on the content of monitoring activities and inspections of PMSCs, as well as a lack of references to compliance by the PSC and/or its personnel with international human rights and humanitarian law and standards, and provisions on penal accountability, civil liability of individuals and corporate actors, as well as effective remedies to victims. 70. Considering the diverse activities and the broad geographical scope covered by PMSC services, lack of regulation in those critical areas may result in States’ ineffective control over the private security industry and the activities of its personnel. Lack of familiarity with human rights standards among PMSC personnel also raises concerns. In order to ensure that the relevant international human rights and humanitarian law and standards are respected and effectively used in the course of private security operations with a view to minimizing the risk of violations thereto and 113 114 115 116 employer of the security guard shall provide compensation and may demand recourse, in accordance with the law, against the security guard who has acted with malice or gross negligence.” Philippines, Republic Act No. 5487, 1969, sect. 8, second para. See article 13 (6. India, Act No. 29, 2005, sect. 23. Pakistan, 2000 Sindh Ordinance, sect. 13. 19