A/HRC/30/47 (a) The Working Group acknowledged that certain functions were inherent to the State, for which it retained ultimate responsibility regardless of whether or not it outsourced that function. Some inherent State functions might not be outsourced, namely direct participation in hostilities in armed conflict, and detention and interrogation of prisoners of war, as defined in the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The Working Group proposed that recommendations for the recognition of different classifications of service activity be included in the draft. Those classifications were predicated on identifying which activities increased the risk of human rights violations when undertaken by private actors. They also addressed the gap left by the Montreux Document, which applied solely to armed conflicts; (b) Intergovernmental organizations, as well as States, could become party to the convention. While that was not new, it reinforced the notion of accountability of intergovernmental organizations and supported the growing trend of such organizations assuming their objective international legal personality in becoming party to international instruments; (c) The Working Group proposed one article on implementation, bringing together the different related articles in the first draft convention. Obligations under that article would apply to domestic and international companies, as well as to services offered to States and to intergovernmental, non-State and corporate clients; (d) The Working Group offered a new definition of a licence, which would serve as a modality for establishing and enforcing standards; (e) The Working Group put forward one coherent article on licensing covering five focus areas, again bringing together related elements in the first draft convention; (f) Registration should take place as a secondary step following licensing. That built on the registry of the first draft convention and would serve as a monitoring system of related actors and activities; (g) The Working Group introduced a new framework of regulation of jurisdiction. The new draft sought to strengthen accountability and extraterritorial provisions, notably to cover the complex environments in which the security industry often operated. The framework applied the following hierarchy of principles for establishing jurisdiction: active person; passive person; territoriality; and universal jurisdiction; (h) The Working Group deemed it essential to establish a mechanism for the purposes of oversight and ensuring remedy and reparations for victims. The modality, be it a committee or ombudsperson or other modality, had not yet been determined, but any mechanism that could regularly, efficiently and comprehensively undertake monitoring and investigation and guarantee remedy for victims was worthy of review. 34. Ms. Karska concluded by hoping that that new formulation of key principles would be a source of fruitful and constructive discussion among the open-ended intergovernmental working group, and would build a stronger foundation for mutual consideration and shared positions as deliberations progressed. 35. During the subsequent discussion, some delegations welcomed the concept note prepared by the Working Group. According to one delegation, the concept note comprehensively covered the elements that might be included in the kind of legally binding instrument for which the open-ended intergovernmental working group had been created. It also suggested that the Chair-Rapporteur consolidate all proposals, including the concept note, for future deliberations and as a basis for future work. Furthermore, it expressed its appreciation for the work of the International Code of Conduct Association and the Government of Switzerland in relation to the Montreux Document, and said that it was time for the intergovernmental working group to pull together all those efforts in a 10