A/HRC/24/38 consultation has been flawed or entirely missing, precisely in cases where public participation would have been most necessary. 21. In order to test the existence or otherwise of domestic democracy in recent times, it may be instructive to explore how decisions such as those on the increasing electronic and video surveillance of individuals, arrest, indefinite detention, social security, health care, employment, marriage, abortion, etc. have been taken and are being taken, and the degree of genuine public participation in these decisions. More concretely, would a majority of the population accept the grave restrictions of human rights following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? Would it accept the priorities imposed by Governments with regard to so-called “austerity measures”? Would it approve the bailout of the banks? Would it approve increasing militarization and the enormous slice of the budget allocated to the “defence” industry? Would it consent to the participation of their respective countries in military adventures not supported by resolutions of the Security Council and not allowed under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter? Would it consent to the sale of weapons to belligerents in foreign civil wars? Would it consent to the use of drones regardless of civilian casualties and collateral damage? Would the citizens of the 54 nations that cooperated with the system of rendition, secret prisons, “black holes”, etc. have approved illegal acts committed in the name of the “war against terrorism”? 17 Would they consent to the use of military commissions to try civilians? What has been the role of some media in creating an atmosphere of imminent threat and fear through disinformation and skewed reporting, in contravention of the prohibition of war propaganda stipulated in article 20 ICCPR? Would a public referendum approve adoption of infants by same-sex couples? What does it mean when mass protests demanding democratic reforms and human rights are met with excessive use of force by police? Can laws be adopted top-down without public debate and in spite of widespread protest by the population? Are populations hostage of parliamentarians and incapable of influencing policy until the next elections, which may or may not allow a choice of policies but only of candidates whose decisions are sometimes a surprise to the electorate? Many of these issues demand public debate and consultation and should not be short-circuited and decided over the heads of the people. 22. Undoubtedly, there is room for improvement in each and every country. No country has a perfect report card. While some countries have strong points in specific areas, they may have serious lacunae in other areas. For instance, some countries have made enormous progress on civil and political rights, but lag in the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights. In some States and territories there are minorities, indigenous populations, people under occupation, unrepresented people and persons living in extreme poverty,18 who lack the possibility to effectively participate in decision–making19. Effective measures, including a judicial system of enforceable rights, should be adopted to empower women, minorities, indigenous populations, unrepresented peoples, persons with disabilities, etc., so that they can meaningfully participate in the political process and in the decisions affecting them, their right to self-determination, their traditional environment, their culture and beliefs. 17 18 19 8 Convention for Cyprus , Berlin, 2009. A de Zayas, “The Annan Plan”, The Cyprus Yearbook of International Relations, 2006, pp. 163–178. See A/HRC/22/52. See http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13369&LangID=E. A/HRC/13/25 Recommendations of the second session of the Forum on Minority Issues on minorities and effective political participation. Reports of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice.