A/HRC/30/47 The law would apply to individuals and companies providing security services abroad, from Switzerland, or who would provide, in Switzerland, services linked to security services provided abroad. The law also applied to companies established in Switzerland that exercised control over security companies active abroad, and prohibited certain activities relating to direct participation in hostilities or to grave violations of human rights. 25. The Russian Federation recalled that its legislation did not provide for the extraterritorial activities of private military and security companies, including military activities. Those functions could only be undertaken by State institutions. In view of global trends, legal and political experts in the Russian Federation were discussing the advisability of expanding the activities of private military and security companies and outsourcing some State functions. Arguments in favour included considerations of professionalism, mobility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The Russian Federation noted that any such move would need to be carried out within existing international human rights and international humanitarian law, and highlighted that challenges included the lack of State control over those activities, the lack of remedies and the current legal norms, which were insufficient or ineffective. 26. The Chair-Rapporteur indicated several possible points for discussion such as the implementation of existing standards by States, including grievance procedures for victims, cases brought against companies and their outcome. 27. The Colombian Commission of Jurists referred to general comment No. 35 of the Human Rights Committee, in which it was noted, inter alia, that when private individuals or entities are empowered or authorized by a State party to exercise powers of arrest or detention, the State party remains responsible for adherence and ensuring adherence to article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 28. The Executive Director of the International Code of Conduct Association8 provided an update on the key governance and oversight functions of the Association, indicating that a draft certification procedure was pending consideration by the Association’s Board of Directors and its General Assembly. The Association anticipated that its reporting, monitoring and assessment of performance functions would be significantly developed in the future, and would involve extensive stakeholder outreach. The Executive Director also noted that clients of private security companies had approached the Association to discuss making membership in the Association a requirement in contracts with companies, as well as an authorization criterion in national legislation (Switzerland). Some had also raised the intention of the United States Department of State to make membership in the Association a requirement for potential contractors involved in the Department’s worldwide protective services programme. 29. The second meeting of the fourth session concluded with an interactive dialogue. One delegation and the Chair-Rapporteur queried the ability of the International Code of Conduct Association to ensure accountability, access to remedy and transparency in the process of examining a complaint. The Executive Director responded that the Association was limited by its articles of association and by the powers conferred to it by its members (Governments, companies and civil society). He added that the Association would never be able to supplant the role of national laws and national law enforcement bodies, but it would 8 8 Before giving the floor to Mr. Orsmond from the International Code of Conduct Association, the Chair-Rapporteur recalled Human Rights Council resolutions 22/33 and 28/7, in which the Council decided that the intergovernmental working group “shall invite experts and all relevant stakeholders to participate in its work”. He also recalled that during the third session, industry representatives had been welcome to participate in the session either as an independent stakeholder or member of a delegation (A/HRC//WG.10/3/2, para. 12).