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.  The Afro-Colombian human rights defender in the southwestern region of Cauca, still plunged into insecurity, is disappointed by the peace agreement reached in November 2016 between the previous government of Juan Manuel Santos and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of the Left of Colombia (FARC). The Colombian peace talks in Havana had an above-average female turnout – sometimes a third of delegates in Havana were women, above the global average.
 The General Agreement that led the process recognized that negotiations “require the participation of all without distinction.” A year after the discussions, women and their concerns have largely disappeared, and women`s organizations have begun to push for greater inclusion. In October 2013, nearly 450 women from across Colombia gathered in Bogota for the National Summit of Women and Peace to demand their inclusion in the peace process. Colombia`s 2016 peace agreement was a remarkable achievement.