In early February, the government and the FARC split again over the referendum. The FARC argued in a statement that the referendum was contrary to the general agreement (from August 2012). In response, President Santos tweeted that the final agreement would be put to a referendum in Havana, whether the FARC likes it or not.  At the end of February, the FARC`s „armed proselytism” at an „educational policy” event (in which Ivén Marquez and other negotiators participated) caused a great deal of controversy in La Guajira. Since 2015, FARC negotiators had been allowed by the government to travel to Colombia to hold „political educational” events only with their troops, and until then all these activities had gone smoothly. However, the presence of armed men mingling with the civilian population during this particular event in La Guajira has revived fears about the use of weapons by the guerrillas at political events. President Santos told the guerrillas that „political educational” demonstrations were suspended until further notice and issued an ultimatum for a final agreement to be signed on 23 March or that the FARC is not ready for peace. Mr Semana said the incident was a blow to confidence in the peace process, which came at a critical time.  The government`s biggest challenge will be to move from speaking (or signed agreements) to action. They must strengthen internal cohesion and strengthen regional institutional capacity so that the agreement can be fully implemented. An agreement was reached on 12 May to guarantee the final agreement. After the signing, the final agreement would be considered a special agreement under Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and would form part of the constitution of Colombian constitutional protection (as international humanitarian law). The government would present to Congress an ordinary law to approve the final agreement as a special agreement, Congress would approve it or reject it within 8 days and the Constitutional Court would review it.
Subsequently, the government would introduce an amendment to the Constitution (legislative act) to include the text of the final agreement on the Constitution as a temporary article. Finally, after the signing of the final agreement, the President will make a unilateral declaration to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on behalf of the Colombian State on the final agreement on Resolution 2261 of 25 January 2016.   The announcement ensured the legal certainty of the agreement and strengthened the FARC`s confidence in compliance with the agreements – the constitutional anchoring of a final agreement would protect it from future changes in political conditions and would engage the Colombian government before the international community. In approving this procedure, the FARC expressed its acceptance by the political institutions it had rejected and fought for decades. At the same time, without justifying the referendum, the FARC suggested that the final agreement would be subject to ratification by the population, implicitly abandoning its insistence on a constituent assembly as an implementation mechanism.  The details of the legal security agreement have sparked legal controversy in Colombia. Alvaro Uribe called it a coup, while Inspector General Alejandro Ordéez, another prominent critic of the peace process, wrote a letter to Santos accusing him of wanting to replace the constitution with the FARC and threatening to take disciplinary action. However, the legal experts, who were not necessarily opposed to the peace process, also raised questions about the legality of the measures enumerated in the May 12 agreement, such as the inclusion of the final agreement in the constitutional court.  Three days later, the negotiating parties announced an agreement on the release of minors under the age of 15 from the FARC camps, as well as a roadmap for the release of all other minors and a specific programme for their care.