Despite this progress, a new important difference emerged between the government and the FARC: its insistence on a constituent assembly to implement the results of a final agreement. For the guerrillas, a constituent assembly was the only way to change the political regime and reform political institutions, but the government maintained its unwavering opposition to the risks of amending the Constitution. Several members of the government, led by Chief Negotiator Humberto de la Calle, highlighted the government`s opposition to a constituent assembly. Instead, to ratify a final agreement, the government proposed an existing form of citizen participation – a referendum, a referendum or a referendum. [33] In August 2013, the government introduced a bill that would hold constitutional referendums necessary to implement the final agreement, with the hope of holding it at the same time as the 2014 legislative elections (in March) or the presidential elections (in May) that would require the signing of a final agreement by the end of 2013. The FARC, which insisted on a Constituent Assembly, rejected the government`s short deadline to end the negotiations and announced a „pause“ in the talks [27] [34] Although discussions continued, frustration over the slow process and upcoming 2014 election campaigns led to media speculation that talks could be suspended or even halted. [35] Although there were no formal peace talks with the FARC under Uribe`s presidency, informal contacts were established in secret. In 2012, when the current peace process began, El Tiempo recounted how Uribe had sought „secret rapprochements with the FARC in search of a peace process“ until the last moments of his second term. [9] In 2013, former Swiss mediator Jean Pierre Gontard said that in 2006 Uribe had ordered three small unilateral truces to facilitate talks between the two sides. [10] The peace process received a boost with the announcement of a partial agreement on the second item on the agenda, political participation (with the issue of the Constituent Assembly unresolved). [27] The FARC announced on 15 December 2013 a second unilateral interim ceasefire, valid until 14 January 2014. [36] One of the biggest failures has happened on the security front, government officials and rebels have assured that skeptical Colombians will be the biggest dividend of the peace agreement. The peace process and peace talks in Havana have been supported by the Norwegian and Cuban governments, both of which are the guarantors of the final agreement.

The participation of Norway and Cuba has contributed to the mutual trust of the parties to the conflict and to the credibility of the peace process. The participation of third parties in the development of the peace agreement does not change the legal status of the peace agreement, but it has contributed to the successful conclusion of the negotiations: the lack of involvement of the international community in the peace negotiations during the presidency of Andrés Pastrana would have contributed to the failure of the negotiations. [95] The Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia signed agreements on the final points of a peace agreement that concluded nearly four years of negotiations in Havana on 24 August.