A/HRC/19/2 sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/19/6/Add.1). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions, its voluntary commitments and the outcome 439. Swaziland provided an update of activities and progress made since its review by the Working Group, as well as its responses to recommendations on which it had not taken a position, and additional information to questions raised. 440. Swaziland stated that, in February 2012, a training workshop had been conducted on the treaty body reporting mechanism, specifically on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. During the training, officers had obtained information and developed skills in relation to the role and function of the treaty monitoring bodies, on how to prepare effective reports, as well as understanding the reporting process and how to enhance opportunities for civil society and the Commission on Human Rights and Public Administration to engage with those bodies. Swaziland extended its sincere gratitude to OHCHR, which had sent a team of experts to the country to train officers. 441. The recommendations made by Member States during its review had been examined by the National Steering Committee on the Universal Periodic Review. Responses had been drafted and approved after consultation with all relevant stakeholders. The Government of Swaziland had made the National Steering Committee a permanent body that would be responsible for preparing State reports for the treaty bodies. 442. Swaziland underlined the fact that some 90 per cent of all recommendations made during its review had received a favourable response from the Government, and that its statement would focus mostly on those that it had promised to consider but that had not received its support. 443. With regard to the accession to the second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, capital punishment was not mandatory and the death penalty had last been carried out in 1983. In effect, though a retentionist State in law, Swaziland was abolitionist in practice. Swaziland was not yet ready to accede to the Optional Protocol, at least for the time being. In this regard, it considered the current practice of not implementing capital punishment to be adequate. 444. On the recommendation on torture and extrajudicial killings, Swaziland highlighted the fact that all deaths were investigated by law enforcement officers. Where there was sufficient evidence, criminal proceedings were instituted. It confirmed that torture was unlawful, hence the acceptance of the recommendation on acceding to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 445. With regard to the recommendations on considering allowing the registration and operation of political parties, including greater political freedoms through free, fair, transparent democratic elections; on removing all legislative and practical restrictions impeding the free exercise of civil and political rights, in particular those related to freedom of association and expression, with a view to allow the creation of political parties and respect for trade unions; on enacting legislative measures to facilitate the existence of political parties; and on taking steps to further democratization efforts, including enacting laws that facilitate the registration of political parties, Swaziland recalled the intervention made by its delegation during the review, in which it clarified that political parties were not banned. Section 25, read together with section 32 of the Constitution, protected the right to freedom of association, including the rights of trade unions. By virtue of section 79 of the GE.13-14768 199