Add annotation to unhcr/doc_2 page 2

annotation_data/unhcr_extractions/doc_2/raw/doc_2_direct_judged.jsonl

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 [
   {
-    "input_text": "# participation in the programme\n\n### **CF \u2018Right to Protection\u2019** **2021**\n\n1\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "# participation in the programme\n\n### **CF ‘Right to Protection’** **2021**\n\n1\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [],
     "document": {
       "source": "https://reliefweb.int/attachments/1073c8c3-6dfb-3e41-af95-d70f590af840/01_2021_r2p_report_on_resolution_767_eng.pdf",
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
     }
   },
   {
-    "input_text": "## INTRODUCTION\n#### This report is mainly based on the results of the survey about intentions, challenges and obstacles encountered during participation in the compensation programme for damaged/destroyed housing objects launched within CMU resolution \u2116767. In addition, a significant deal of information was gathered during our monitoring visits to plenty of settlements in Donetska and Luhanska oblasts in the period of October-December. Our outreach workers and legal team also took part in some of the commission assessment sessions either as observers or members, thus they had an opportunity to obtain firsthand experience on the implementation of the programme. By focusing on the perspective of claimants, this report complements a survey conducted by UNHCR in November 2020, which focuses on the functioning of the local assessment commissions, based on observations from R2P and other NGO members or observers in these commissions. R2P launched this survey primarily to find out whether this programme is relevant for its target audience, as well as to reveal the pitfalls of the programme from the perspective of participants. Therefore, we decided to survey our beneficiaries of IDP and conflict-affected background who reportedly had problems with damaged/destroyed housing objects and those potential beneficiaries whom our outreach workers already knew or got to know during field trips. The survey has been conducted in the period of October-November in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts via phone and face-to-face interviews. Besides, upon the completion of the survey, some cases were directed to R2P legal team for further investigation. As a result, our team not only conducted research but also promptly provided assistance to those who were willing to participate in the programme but for some reason experienced difficulties with applying for monetary compensation/assistance.\n\n\n\n\n\n3\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "## INTRODUCTION\n#### This report is mainly based on the results of the survey about intentions, challenges and obstacles encountered during participation in the compensation programme for damaged/destroyed housing objects launched within CMU resolution №767. In addition, a significant deal of information was gathered during our monitoring visits to plenty of settlements in Donetska and Luhanska oblasts in the period of October-December. Our outreach workers and legal team also took part in some of the commission assessment sessions either as observers or members, thus they had an opportunity to obtain firsthand experience on the implementation of the programme. By focusing on the perspective of claimants, this report complements a survey conducted by UNHCR in November 2020, which focuses on the functioning of the local assessment commissions, based on observations from R2P and other NGO members or observers in these commissions. R2P launched this survey primarily to find out whether this programme is relevant for its target audience, as well as to reveal the pitfalls of the programme from the perspective of participants. Therefore, we decided to survey our beneficiaries of IDP and conflict-affected background who reportedly had problems with damaged/destroyed housing objects and those potential beneficiaries whom our outreach workers already knew or got to know during field trips. The survey has been conducted in the period of October-November in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts via phone and face-to-face interviews. Besides, upon the completion of the survey, some cases were directed to R2P legal team for further investigation. As a result, our team not only conducted research but also promptly provided assistance to those who were willing to participate in the programme but for some reason experienced difficulties with applying for monetary compensation/assistance.\n\n\n\n\n\n3\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [
       {
         "dataset_name": {
@@ -91,6 +91,29 @@
         "reference_population": null,
         "is_used": "False",
         "usage_context": "primary"
+      },
+      {
+        "dataset_name": {
+          "text": "R2P and other NGO",
+          "confidence": 1,
+          "start": 874,
+          "end": 891
+        },
+        "dataset_tag": "descriptive",
+        "source": "human",
+        "annotator": "rafmacalaba",
+        "timestamp": "2026-02-24T07:04:19.969Z",
+        "description": null,
+        "data_type": null,
+        "acronym": null,
+        "author": null,
+        "producer": null,
+        "geography": null,
+        "publication_year": null,
+        "reference_year": null,
+        "reference_population": null,
+        "is_used": null,
+        "usage_context": null
       }
     ],
     "document": {
@@ -101,7 +124,7 @@
     }
   },
   {
-    "input_text": "## I. KEY FINDINGS\n\n### A. PROFILING OF THE HOUSING SITUATION\n\nOverall, our respondents were surveyed on 826 cases, including 325 on destroyed and\n\n501 on damaged housing objects. Some respondents had two housing objects damaged\n\nand/or destroyed, thus we decided to focus primarily on the number of cases since experience\n\nregarding each of them might vary.\n\n\nThe degree of damage indicated in the official certificates issued upon the\n\ncommission assessment did not always match respondents\u2019 own . Remarkably, in 12% (38)\n\ncases when people believed their housing to be destroyed they obtained a certificate on the\n\ndamaged housing whilst in 5% (23) cases it was the other way around. In turn, in 16% (134)\n\nout of all cases, no official assessment certificates were received. It should be noted that\n\nsometimes confusion arose when both participants and commissioners could not agree on\n\nthe character of housing damage since no clear instructions were found to be guided by.\n\n#### Condition of housing object according to official assessment certificates\n\n\nNo assessment certificate Damaged Destroyed\n\n\n\nDamaged\n\n\nDestroyed\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n0 100 200 300 400\n\n\nLevel of destruction according to assessment certificate\n\n\n4\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "## I. KEY FINDINGS\n\n### A. PROFILING OF THE HOUSING SITUATION\n\nOverall, our respondents were surveyed on 826 cases, including 325 on destroyed and\n\n501 on damaged housing objects. Some respondents had two housing objects damaged\n\nand/or destroyed, thus we decided to focus primarily on the number of cases since experience\n\nregarding each of them might vary.\n\n\nThe degree of damage indicated in the official certificates issued upon the\n\ncommission assessment did not always match respondents’ own . Remarkably, in 12% (38)\n\ncases when people believed their housing to be destroyed they obtained a certificate on the\n\ndamaged housing whilst in 5% (23) cases it was the other way around. In turn, in 16% (134)\n\nout of all cases, no official assessment certificates were received. It should be noted that\n\nsometimes confusion arose when both participants and commissioners could not agree on\n\nthe character of housing damage since no clear instructions were found to be guided by.\n\n#### Condition of housing object according to official assessment certificates\n\n\nNo assessment certificate Damaged Destroyed\n\n\n\nDamaged\n\n\nDestroyed\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n0 100 200 300 400\n\n\nLevel of destruction according to assessment certificate\n\n\n4\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [],
     "document": {
       "source": "https://reliefweb.int/attachments/1073c8c3-6dfb-3e41-af95-d70f590af840/01_2021_r2p_report_on_resolution_767_eng.pdf",
@@ -111,7 +134,7 @@
     }
   },
   {
-    "input_text": "It is worth noticing that some of the housing was damaged several times. To be more\n\nprecise, 145 were damaged twice, 46 \u2013 three times, 29 \u2013 more than that. One housing object\n\neven suffered 10 times.\n\n#### Housing object was damaged...\n\n\n\n700\n\n\n600\n\n\n500\n\n\n400\n\n\n300\n\n\n200\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n100\n\n\n0\n\n1 time 2 times 3 times 4 times            - 4 times\n\n\nMany housing objects took damage during the escalation of the hostilities in 2014 \u2013\n\n2015. As time passes, the condition of the affected housing could change \u2013 either\n\ndeteriorate or be improved by restoration. That is why there was a question on the\n\ncondition as of the moment of the interview in 2020. Half of the objects was partially or fully\n\nrestored.\n#### Housing condition as of interview\n\n\n\nDestroyed\n\n\nDamaged\n\n\nPartially restored\n\n\nFully restored\n\n\nUnspecified\n\n\n\n0 100 200 300 400\n\n\n5\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "It is worth noticing that some of the housing was damaged several times. To be more\n\nprecise, 145 were damaged twice, 46 – three times, 29 – more than that. One housing object\n\neven suffered 10 times.\n\n#### Housing object was damaged...\n\n\n\n700\n\n\n600\n\n\n500\n\n\n400\n\n\n300\n\n\n200\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n100\n\n\n0\n\n1 time 2 times 3 times 4 times            - 4 times\n\n\nMany housing objects took damage during the escalation of the hostilities in 2014 –\n\n2015. As time passes, the condition of the affected housing could change – either\n\ndeteriorate or be improved by restoration. That is why there was a question on the\n\ncondition as of the moment of the interview in 2020. Half of the objects was partially or fully\n\nrestored.\n#### Housing condition as of interview\n\n\n\nDestroyed\n\n\nDamaged\n\n\nPartially restored\n\n\nFully restored\n\n\nUnspecified\n\n\n\n0 100 200 300 400\n\n\n5\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [],
     "document": {
       "source": "https://reliefweb.int/attachments/1073c8c3-6dfb-3e41-af95-d70f590af840/01_2021_r2p_report_on_resolution_767_eng.pdf",
@@ -131,7 +154,7 @@
     }
   },
   {
-    "input_text": "#### **'**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn general, in 546 cases (66.1%) respondents considered participating in the existing\n\n\n\nmechanism of monetary compensation/assistance; in 243 (29.4%) \u2013 did not, whilst, for 37\n\ncases (4.5 percent), owners said that they did not meet the eligibility criteria, or were not\n\nready to comply with them. Given that different conditions apply for destroyed and\n\ndamaged housing units, it might be more useful to break down the aforementioned data.\n\nOut of 325 instances of allegedly destroyed housing, respondents contemplated taking part\n\nin the scheme in 76.3% of the cases and did not in 18.5%. Regarding the damaged objects,\n\n\n\nthe corresponding values were 59.5% and 36.5% respectively.\n\n\n\nThe major reason for not applying was unwillingness to abandon title deeds (161 or\n\n66%). Remarkably, the share of responses was quite alike regarding both damaged and\n\ndestroyed properties: 64.5% and 71.7% respectively. Taking into account that this requirement\n\nis not relevant for the former, it indicates low awareness on the programme conditions.\n\nUncertainty in the positive outcome of the time-consuming procedure and disbelief in the\n\nobjective nature of the assessment were more common in cases of damaged properties\n\n(nearly 15% each vs 5%). Lack of ownership documents and unsatisfactory amount of\n\ncompensation were quoted more often in regards to the destroyed dwellings (18% and almost\n\n17% vs nearly 9% and 6%). Unclear procedure was almost exclusively referred to by the owners\n\n\n7\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "#### **'**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn general, in 546 cases (66.1%) respondents considered participating in the existing\n\n\n\nmechanism of monetary compensation/assistance; in 243 (29.4%) – did not, whilst, for 37\n\ncases (4.5 percent), owners said that they did not meet the eligibility criteria, or were not\n\nready to comply with them. Given that different conditions apply for destroyed and\n\ndamaged housing units, it might be more useful to break down the aforementioned data.\n\nOut of 325 instances of allegedly destroyed housing, respondents contemplated taking part\n\nin the scheme in 76.3% of the cases and did not in 18.5%. Regarding the damaged objects,\n\n\n\nthe corresponding values were 59.5% and 36.5% respectively.\n\n\n\nThe major reason for not applying was unwillingness to abandon title deeds (161 or\n\n66%). Remarkably, the share of responses was quite alike regarding both damaged and\n\ndestroyed properties: 64.5% and 71.7% respectively. Taking into account that this requirement\n\nis not relevant for the former, it indicates low awareness on the programme conditions.\n\nUncertainty in the positive outcome of the time-consuming procedure and disbelief in the\n\nobjective nature of the assessment were more common in cases of damaged properties\n\n(nearly 15% each vs 5%). Lack of ownership documents and unsatisfactory amount of\n\ncompensation were quoted more often in regards to the destroyed dwellings (18% and almost\n\n17% vs nearly 9% and 6%). Unclear procedure was almost exclusively referred to by the owners\n\n\n7\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [],
     "document": {
       "source": "https://reliefweb.int/attachments/1073c8c3-6dfb-3e41-af95-d70f590af840/01_2021_r2p_report_on_resolution_767_eng.pdf",
@@ -161,7 +184,7 @@
     }
   },
   {
-    "input_text": "Some applicants, whose housing objects are located in settlements near to the contact\n\nline, could not get their properties accessed by the commission due to security reasons. In\n\nparticular, despite being requested, commissions did not visit some endangered parts of such\n\nsettlements as Pivdenne, Marinka, Krasnohorivka, Avdiivka, Opytne, Vodiane, Pisky, Berezove\n\n(Donetska oblast), and Zolote-4 (Luhanska oblast). In some cases, like in Marinka, JFO already\n\nconcluded there is no possibility to visit areas in the \u201cred zone\u201d, while in other cases, like in\n\nBerezove the decision of JFO was still being awaited.\n\n\n10\n\n\n",
+    "input_text": "Some applicants, whose housing objects are located in settlements near to the contact\n\nline, could not get their properties accessed by the commission due to security reasons. In\n\nparticular, despite being requested, commissions did not visit some endangered parts of such\n\nsettlements as Pivdenne, Marinka, Krasnohorivka, Avdiivka, Opytne, Vodiane, Pisky, Berezove\n\n(Donetska oblast), and Zolote-4 (Luhanska oblast). In some cases, like in Marinka, JFO already\n\nconcluded there is no possibility to visit areas in the “red zone”, while in other cases, like in\n\nBerezove the decision of JFO was still being awaited.\n\n\n10\n\n\n",
     "datasets": [],
     "document": {
       "source": "https://reliefweb.int/attachments/1073c8c3-6dfb-3e41-af95-d70f590af840/01_2021_r2p_report_on_resolution_767_eng.pdf",