The document provides a summary of a survey conducted in June 2018 at five entry-exit checkpoints along the line of contact in eastern Ukraine. The following key points were reported: - Most respondents were female elderly residents of non-government controlled areas who cross the checkpoints quarterly to access pensions and services. - Travel to government-controlled areas was mostly to address documents issues and withdrawals, while travel to non-government areas was to visit relatives and check property. - Crossing times averaged 2-3 hours, with the longest waits at Maiorske checkpoint. Conditions were most difficult at Stanytsia Luhanska due to a one-hour walk between checkpoints. - Main concerns included long

1. MONITORING
REPORT
June 2018
CROSSING
THE LINE
OF CONTACT

2. Advocacy, Protection, and Legal Assistance to IDPs 2
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 3
OVERALL SUMMARY 3
1 DEMOGRAPHICS OF RESPONDENTS 4
2 RESIDENCE, DISPLACEMENT AND RETURNS 5
3
REASONS, FREQUENCY AND
DURATION OF CROSSING
6
4
CONCERNS WHILE CROSSING THE LINE OF
CONTACT
9
5 INABILITY TO CROSS 11
This publication has been produced with the assistance of the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR).
The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of «Right to Protection» and can in
no way be taken to reflect the views of UNHCR.

3. vpl.com.ua 3
This report provides the results of the
June 2018 round of the survey conducted
by the Charitable Foundation «The Right
to Protection» (R2P) at the five entry-
exit checkpoints (EECPs) to the non-
government-controlled area (NGCA)
administered on a regular basis since
June 2017. The EECPs are located in
Donetsk (Maiorske, Marinka, Hnutove
and Novotroitske) and Luhansk (Stanytsia
Luhanska) Oblasts. The survey is a part
of the monitoring of violations of the
human rights of the conflict-affected
population within the framework of the
project «Advocacy, Protection and Legal
Assistance to the Internally Displaced
Population of Ukraine» implemented
by R2P with the support of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR). The purpose of the survey is
to explore the reasons and concerns
of those travelling between the NGCA
and the government-controlled area
(GCA), as well as the conditions and
risks associated with crossing the line of
contact through the EECPs. It should be
noted that the survey results should not
be directly extrapolated onto the entire
population crossing the checkpoints, but
it helps identify needs, gaps and trends,
and provides an evidentiary basis for
advocacy efforts. The data collection
methodology was the same at all EECPs.
R2P monitors surveyed civilians queuing
at the government-controlled side of
EECPs in the lines for pedestrians and
for vehicles both in the GCA and NGCA
directions. The survey was conducted
anonymously and on a voluntary basis. All
persons interviewed for the survey were
informed about its purpose. This report is
based on data collected 1-26 June 2018
during 37 visits to the five EECPs. This
reporting period was characterized by
summer heat and the vacation season.
• The overall demography remains
relatively stable throughout all survey
rounds. Women constitute the vast
majority of respondents and the
largest age group is 60+.
• The trend of GCA residents having
far fewer reasons to travel across the
line of contact than NGCA residents
continues. The slight changes in
disaggregation of reasons for crossing
were of a seasonal nature.
• On average it took respondents 2-3
hours to pass all checkpoints. It took
the most time to cross the line of
contact at Maiorske EECP. Waiting
times at Stanytsia Luhanska EECP were
the shortest. The crossing process took
more time at NGCA checkpoints at all
EECPs except Stanytsia Luhanska.
• Summer weather continues to
negatively affect crossing conditions,
especially at Stanytsia Luhanska. As
it takes about 1 hour of walking to
cross the line of contact at Stanytsia
Luhanska EECP, the level of concern
significantly increased. The stuffiness
and lack of sunshades in the summer
can be hazardous to life and health,
especially for the elderly.
INTRODUCTION
OVERALL SUMMARY
Stanytsia Luhanska EECP

4. Advocacy, Protection, and Legal Assistance to IDPs 4
DEMOGRAPHICS OF RESPONDENTS1
During the reporting period, R2P
monitors surveyed a total of 2,288
persons crossing the line of contact. 51%
of them were travelling to the GCA and
49% to the NGCA.
32,5% of respondents were male and
67,5% were female. 8% of respondents
were travelling with children, which
is slightly more than in the previous
month (6% in May). This is connected
with the summer holidays. The elderly
remain the largest age group (53% of
all respondents), which is related to
the administrative burdens people
registered in the NGCA must undergo
to receive their pensions. The overall
demographics of respondents remains
quite similar throughout all survey
rounds.
Marinka EECP
361
13%
34%
548
476
478
53%
425
Hnutove
18-34
35-59
Maiorske
Marinka
Novotroitske
60+
Stanytsia Luhanska
 NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS BY EECP
 AGE DISAGGREGATION

5. vpl.com.ua 5
24%
1% Moved several times
but did not return
18% Moved but then
returned
5% Moved once and are still
residing there
RESIDENCE, DISPLACEMENT AND
RETURN
96.7% of respondents stated that they
resided in the NGCA prior to the conflict.
90.5% of all respondents cited the NGCA
as their place of residence at the time of
the survey.
The trend of GCA residents having far
fewer reasons to travel across the line of
contact than NGCA residents remained
unchanged. 76% of all respondents
stated that they never changed their
place of residence due to the conflict.
The majority of respondents who moved
at least once (18% of all respondents)
ultimately returned to their original
place of residence1
.
The most common reasons for return
indicated by respondents who changed
their place of residence but then
returned were high rent (51.5%) and
stabilized situation (50%). Unwillingness
to abandon a household (42.8%) and
desire to reside at home were also
common reasons for returning. Though
there was a significant difference in
disaggregation of reasons for return in
comparison to the previous reporting
period (for instance, 41.2% of the
returnees surveyed in May explained
their decision by unaffordable rent in
the GCA while in June this option was
chosen by 10.3% more respondents),
it is not appropriate to compare survey
data from different rounds as the survey
does not collect information about time
of displacement or return.
 DISPLACEMENT
 REASONS FOR RETURN2
76%
Did not move Moved
50,0%
42,8%
32,4%
3,2%
6,9%
51,5%
2
1
It is important to mention that the demographics of respondents and their answers should not be extrapolated to the whole population as the survey does not cover
internally displaced persons or NGCA residents who do not travel through the EECPs.
2
Respondents could mention several reasons.
Stabilized
situation
Unwillingness
toabandona
household
Wishtoreside
athome
Careof
arelative
Unemployment
Highrent

6. Advocacy, Protection, and Legal Assistance to IDPs 6
Issues with documents
Avoiding payment suspension
Withdrawing cash
Visiting relatives
Shopping
Vacation
Work
Education
Postal services
Applying to Coordination Grp
Medical treatment
Checking on property
Funeral/visiting a grave
Сare of a relative
Permanent relocation
Other
 to NGCA  to GCA
REASONS AND FREQUENCY3
 REASONS FOR CROSSING BY DIRECTION4
3 The percentage of reasons for crossing was calculated based on the total number of people who indicated either the GCA or the NGCA as their destination.
4 Respondents could mention several reasons.
881
34
10
9
4
7
31
21
544
0
0
0
0
0
50
1
4
6
123
118
21
19
22
369
43
872
37
37
18
53
181
497
Only 12.5% of all respondents indicated
the NGCA as the destination of the
trip. The reasons for crossing differ
substantially depending on the travel
direction. The respondents traveling
to the GCA were mostly solving issues
with documents, avoiding payment
suspension for being away from the
GCA for over 60 days, visiting relatives,
and withdrawing cash. The most
common reasons to travel to the NGCA
were visiting relatives and checking on
property. The number of respondents
checking on their property in the NGCA
and going on vacation in the GCA
increased by 9.3% and 4% respectively,
which is related to the summer season3
.
Among other reasons for travelling were
submitting documents for a permit to
cross the line of contact and passing
the Independent External Evaluation in
order to pursue higher education.

7. vpl.com.ua 7
 FREQUENCY OF CROSSING THE LINE OF CONTACT
 TYPE OF DOCUMENT ISSUE
pension physical
identification
social
payments
IDP
certificate
Oschadbank
(obtaining a
pensioner’s
ID card)
other
28,2%
58,5%
7,7% 5,5% 5,6% 10,9%
Food Clothes Medicine Other
25,6%
32,2%
2,0%
 TYPE OF GOODS PURCHASED
81,6%
17.1% of all respondents indicated
shopping as their reason for crossing
the line of contact. 94.4% of such
respondents were travelling to the GCA.
The number of respondents who were
travelling to buy clothes increased by
5.7%, however the overall proportion
remains relatively stable with food
being the most commonly purchased
item. Among other goods respondents
mentioned purchasing were mainly
household appliances and hygiene items.
The need to pass physical identification
(58.5% of respondents crossing the line
of contact were solving documentation
issues) and pensions (28.2%) remain the
most common documentation issues.
Among other issues, respondents mostly
mentioned submitting documents for
internal or international passports and
obtaining death or birth certificates.
Some fluctuation in frequency of crossing
was observed in comparison to May:
the number of respondents who cross
the line of contact quarterly increased
by 4.8%, while the number of monthly
crossings decreased by 7%.
The majority of respondents (65.7%)
stated that they cross the line of
contact quarterly. Considering the
age disaggregation, such share of
respondents travelling quarterly
and monthly is often related to the
requirements imposed on people with
NGCAresidence registration byUkrainian
legislation for obtaining pensions and
social benefits, such as verification of the
actual place of residence and physical
identification at Oschadbank.
 Daily  Weekly  Monthly
 Quarterly  6 months or rarely  For the first time
18-34
5,5% 19,2%
26,1%
20,1%
41,2%
56,9%
77,6%
28,6%
12,7%
35-59
60+

8. Advocacy, Protection, and Legal Assistance to IDPs 8
 DURATION OF CROSSING
 WHICH CHECKPOINT SIDE TOOK LONGER TO CROSS
17.8% of those surveyed stated that
they have previously crossed the
line of contact during the reporting
period. Graphs in this section contain
information on duration of crossing in
June.
Themajority(56.6%)ofsuchrespondents
spent 2 to 3 hours to cross through the
EECPs on both the GCA and NGCA sides.
Among all five EECPs it took the most
time to cross the line of contact at
Maiorske EECP. Almost 50% of those
respondents who crossed the line of
contact at Maiorske EECP in May had
to spend 4 hours or more. A significant
increase in crossing times was observed
at Novotroitske EECP where the number
of respondents who spent more than 4
hours increased by 27.7%. The largest
share of respondents who spent less
than 2 hours crossing the line of contact
was at Stanytsia Luhanska EECP. It is
important to note that the bridge at
Stanytsia Luhanska is damaged and there
is no roadway for vehicles. Thus, it takes
about an hour to walk between the GCA
and NGCA checkpoints there.
The majority of respondents stated that
it took more time to pass the NGCA
checkpoints, which is similar to the May
survey. Such tendency correlates to
information obtained during monitoring
visits: people crossing the line of contact
complained about slow servicing on the
NGCA side.
Stanytsia Luhanska EECP remained the
only one where the majority (78.1%)
of respondents stated that they spent
more time crossing the GCA checkpoints.
According to information received during
monitoring visits, the control procedure
in the GCA is more thorough. At the
same time, GCA checkpoints at Stanytsia
Luhanska lack the staff and equipment
for speedy processing due to heavy
traffic at the EECP.
1,5%
6,6%
56,6%
80%
Less than 1 hour
1-2 hours
2-3 hours
NGCA side
0,25%
1%
5,15%
11%
29,9%
8%
Not specified
Not specified
5+ hours
Approximately
the same
4-5 hours
GCA side

9. vpl.com.ua 9
In comparison to the previous reporting
period several changes in the level of
concerns were observed. The number of
respondents who did not mention any
complaints decreased by 7% at Stanytsia
Luhanska EECP and 5.4% at Hnutove EECP.
Such a decrease is related to weather
conditions.
Long lines remain one of the main
concerns at EECPs, especially taking into
account the summer heat. Moreover, at
Marinka EECP the number of complaints
about the lines increased from 70.8% in
May to 85.1% in June.
After considerable increase in the level of
concern about the intensified shelling in
May, this concern reduced to some extent
at Maiorske EECP (from 29.4% in May to
20.3% in June) and decreased to zero at
Hnutove EECP (from 8% in May).
The heat continue to negatively affect the
situation at Stanytsia Luhanska EECP. As
crossing the line of contact at Stanytsia
Luhanska EECP requires over an hour of
walking, the level of concern about the
waiting conditions, poor condition of the
pedestrian area and long distance one
must walk increased by 27.7%, 16,8% and
15.6% respectively in comparison to May.
5
Respondents could mention several concerns.
CONCERNS WHILE CROSSING
THE LINE OF CONTACT
4
 CONCERNS WHILE CROSSING5
 DYNAMICS IN GENERAL LEVEL OF CONCERN
 Hnutove
 Maiorske
 Marinka
 Novotroitske
 Stanytsia
Luhanska
1,9%
10,0%
0,2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0,2%
0,2%
0%
0,4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0,3%
0%
0,8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
13,0%
1,1%
15,3%
28,2%
15,5%
69,3%
85,1%
24,5%
75,3%
0%
0%
13,9%
4,0%
36,5%
2,5%
0,2%
2,9%
11,4%
8,4%
26,7%
26,8%
54,6%
0%
1,1%
1,9%
20,3%
0%
0,7%
50,7%
26,3%
9,0%
23,0%
12,5%
0%
0,8%
36,2%
transport
poorcondition
oftheroad/
bridge/
pedestrianline
SGBV
lines
longdistance
totravel
onfoot
confiscation/
restrictionson
carriedgoods
abuseof
power
waiting
conditions
explosive
remnants
ofwar
shelling/
shooting
other
noproblem
Maiorske
Novotroitske
Hnutove
Marinka
Stanytsia
Luhanska
0
-4
-6
2
6
-2
4
8
5,4%
-2,3%
3,3%
-5,1%
7,0%

10. Advocacy, Protection, and Legal Assistance to IDPs 10
 Hnutove
 Maiorske
 Marinka
 Novotroitske
 Stanytsia Luhanska
 WAITING CONDITIONS
Sun/rain
shades
Water Seats Medical
points
Toilets Garbage Other
Waiting conditions remain a cause of
significant concern, especially at Stanytsia
Luhanska EECP. There were more
complaints about the lack of sunshades
at Stanytsia Luhanska (the level of
concern raised by 24.5%) and Hnutove
(by 8.4%) EECPs. Even though there are
State Emergency Service tents located at
EECPs, it is not feasible to use them during
crossing as people may miss their turn if
they leave the line. The lack of sunshades
and stuffiness in the summer can be
hazardous to life and health, especially
for the elderly. During monitoring visits
numerous cases of losing consciousness
continued to be reported.
Marinka EECP
13,9%
1,1%
1,1%
0,3%
0%
3,2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7,8%
1,3%
1,6%
0%
0,2%
23,5%
6,1%
14,5%
9,7%
16,5%
2,5%
15,5%
0%
3,6%
2,9%
47,3%
0,5%
45,6%
4,0%
40,9%
3,5%
1,9%

11. vpl.com.ua 11
Only 2.8% of all respondents mentioned
incidents of not being able to cross the
line of contact in the past six months.
The crossing permit not being in the
database was the most common reason
for such incidents.
INABILITY TO CROSS5
 REASONS FOR INABILITY TO CROSS6
Lack of permit
in the database
Long lines
Lack of documents
Checkpoint closed
2,2%
0,3%
0,2%
0,1%
Maiorske EECP
6
Respondents could mention several concerns.

12. For more information please contact: pr@r2p.org.ua