View allAll Photos Tagged testify
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Representative Kay Granger, chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee on Foreign Operations, in the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, D.C., on February 25, 2015, prior to testifying before the panel, and after appearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]
members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission testifies on the NRC budget at an oversight hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Power May 7, 2014. Left to right, Chairman Allison Macfarlane and Commissioners Kristine Svinicki. George Apostolakis, William Magwood and William Ostendorff.
Visit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's website at www.nrc.gov/.
For those who wish to leave a comment or feedback please send via email to opa.resource@nrc.gov.
Luca Giordano (1634-1705), active in Naples, Florence and Madrid
The Archangel Michael overthrows the apostate angels, around 1664
When a part of the angels rebelled against God, they were overthrown by the Archangel Michael into the abyss of hell. The desperately screaming, distorted faces of the defeated angels - now turned into devils - testify to the stark realism of the Spanish-Neapolitan court painter Jusepe de Ribera. In the refined colorfulness of Michael, too, the work is dominated by the Venetian influenced palette of Ribera. The altarpiece, whose original destination is unknown, was in the late 18th century taken from the Viennese Minorite Church to the Imperial Gallery.
Luca Giordano (1634-1705), tätig in Neapel, Florenz und Madrid
Der Erzengel Michael stürzt die abtrünnigen Engel, um 1664
Als sich ein Teil der Engel gegen Gott empörte, wurden diese vom Erzengel Michael in den Abgrund der Hölle gestürzt. Die verzweifelt schreienden, verzerrten Gesichter der besiegten Engel - nun zu Teufeln geworden - zeugen vom krassen Realismus des spanisch-neapolitanischen Hofmalers Jusepe de Ribera. Auch in der raffinierten Farbigkeit des Michael ist das Werk von der venezianisch beeinflussten Palette Riberas bestimmt. Das Altarbild, dessen ursprünglicher Bestimmungsort unbekannt ist, wurde im späten 18. Jahrhundert aus der Wiener Minoritenkirche in die kaiserliche Gemäldegalerie gebracht.
Austria Kunsthistorisches Museum
Federal Museum
Logo KHM
Regulatory authority (ies)/organs to the Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture
Founded 17 October 1891
Headquartered Castle Ring (Burgring), Vienna 1, Austria
Management Sabine Haag
www.khm.at website
Main building of the Kunsthistorisches Museum at Maria-Theresa-Square
The Kunsthistorisches Museum (KHM abbreviated) is an art museum in Vienna. It is one of the largest and most important museums in the world. It was opened in 1891 and 2012 visited of 1.351.940 million people.
The museum
The Kunsthistorisches Museum is with its opposite sister building, the Natural History Museum (Naturhistorisches Museum), the most important historicist large buildings of the Ringstrasse time. Together they stand around the Maria Theresa square, on which also the Maria Theresa monument stands. This course spans the former glacis between today's ring road and 2-line, and is forming a historical landmark that also belongs to World Heritage Site Historic Centre of Vienna.
History
Archduke Leopold Wilhelm in his Gallery
The Museum came from the collections of the Habsburgs, especially from the portrait and armor collections of Ferdinand of Tyrol, the collection of Emperor Rudolf II (most of which, however scattered) and the art collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm into existence. Already In 1833 asked Joseph Arneth, curator (and later director) of the Imperial Coins and Antiquities Cabinet, bringing together all the imperial collections in a single building .
Architectural History
The contract to build the museum in the city had been given in 1858 by Emperor Franz Joseph. Subsequently, many designs were submitted for the ring road zone. Plans by August Sicard von Sicardsburg and Eduard van der Null planned to build two museum buildings in the immediate aftermath of the Imperial Palace on the left and right of the Heroes' Square (Heldenplatz). The architect Ludwig Förster planned museum buildings between the Schwarzenberg Square and the City Park, Martin Ritter von Kink favored buildings at the corner Währingerstraße/ Scots ring (Schottenring), Peter Joseph, the area Bellariastraße, Moritz von Loehr the south side of the opera ring, and Ludwig Zettl the southeast side of the grain market (Getreidemarkt).
From 1867, a competition was announced for the museums, and thereby set their current position - at the request of the Emperor, the museum should not be too close to the Imperial Palace, but arise beyond the ring road. The architect Carl von Hasenauer participated in this competition and was able the at that time in Zürich operating Gottfried Semper to encourage to work together. The two museum buildings should be built here in the sense of the style of the Italian Renaissance. The plans got the benevolence of the imperial family. In April 1869, there was an audience with of Joseph Semper at the Emperor Franz Joseph and an oral contract was concluded, in July 1870 was issued the written order to Semper and Hasenauer.
Crucial for the success of Semper and Hasenauer against the projects of other architects were among others Semper's vision of a large building complex called "Imperial Forum", in which the museums would have been a part of. Not least by the death of Semper in 1879 came the Imperial Forum not as planned for execution, the two museums were built, however.
Construction of the two museums began without ceremony on 27 November 1871 instead. Semper moved to Vienna in the sequence. From the beginning, there were considerable personal differences between him and Hasenauer, who finally in 1877 took over sole construction management. 1874, the scaffolds were placed up to the attic and the first floor completed, built in 1878, the first windows installed in 1879, the Attica and the balustrade from 1880 to 1881 and built the dome and the Tabernacle. The dome is topped with a bronze statue of Pallas Athena by Johannes Benk.
The lighting and air conditioning concept with double glazing of the ceilings made the renunciation of artificial light (especially at that time, as gas light) possible, but this resulted due to seasonal variations depending on daylight to different opening times .
Kuppelhalle
Entrance (by clicking the link at the end of the side you can see all the pictures here indicated!)
Grand staircase
Hall
Empire
The Kunsthistorisches Museum was on 17 October 1891 officially opened by Emperor Franz Joseph I. Since 22 October 1891 , the museum is accessible to the public. Two years earlier, on 3 November 1889, the collection of arms, Arms and Armour today, had their doors open. On 1 January 1890 the library service resumed its operations. The merger and listing of other collections of the Highest Imperial Family from the Upper and Lower Belvedere, the Hofburg Palace and Ambras in Tyrol will need another two years.
189, the farm museum was organized in seven collections with three directorates:
Directorate of coins, medals and antiquities collection
The Egyptian Collection
The Antique Collection
The coins and medals collection
Management of the collection of weapons, art and industrial objects
Weapons collection
Collection of industrial art objects
Directorate of Art Gallery and Restaurieranstalt (Restoration Office)
Collection of watercolors, drawings, sketches, etc.
Restoration Office
Library
Very soon the room the Court Museum (Hofmuseum) for the imperial collections was offering became too narrow. To provide temporary help, an exhibition of ancient artifacts from Ephesus in the Theseus Temple was designed. However, additional space had to be rented in the Lower Belvedere.
1914, after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne, his " Estonian Forensic Collection " passed to the administration of the Court Museum. This collection, which emerged from the art collection of the house of d' Este and world travel collection of Franz Ferdinand, was placed in the New Imperial Palace since 1908. For these stocks, the present collection of old musical instruments and the Museum of Ethnology emerged.
The First World War went by, apart from the oppressive economic situation without loss. The farm museum remained during the five years of war regularly open to the public.
Until 1919 the K.K. Art Historical Court Museum was under the authority of the Oberstkämmereramt (head chamberlain office) and belonged to the House of Habsburg-Lorraine. The officials and employees were part of the royal household.
First Republic
The transition from monarchy to republic, in the museum took place in complete tranquility. On 19 November 1918 the two imperial museums on Maria Theresa Square were placed under the state protection of the young Republic of German Austria. Threatening to the stocks of the museum were the claims raised in the following weeks and months of the "successor states" of the monarchy as well as Italy and Belgium on Austrian art collection. In fact, it came on 12th February 1919 to the violent removal of 62 paintings by armed Italian units. This "art theft" left a long time trauma among curators and art historians.
It was not until the Treaty of Saint-Germain of 10 September 1919, providing in Article 195 and 196 the settlement of rights in the cultural field by negotiations. The claims of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Italy again could mostly being averted in this way. Only Hungary, which presented the greatest demands by far, was met by more than ten years of negotiation in 147 cases.
On 3 April 1919 was the expropriation of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine by law and the acquisition of its property, including the "Collections of the Imperial House" , by the Republic. Of 18 June 1920 the then provisional administration of the former imperial museums and collections of Este and the secular and clergy treasury passed to the State Office of Internal Affairs and Education, since 10 November 1920, the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Education. A few days later it was renamed the Art History Court Museum in the "Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna State", 1921 "Kunsthistorisches Museum" . Of 1st January 1921 the employees of the museum staff passed to the state of the Republic.
Through the acquisition of the former imperial collections owned by the state, the museum found itself in a complete new situation. In order to meet the changed circumstances in the museum area, designed Hans Tietze in 1919 the "Vienna Museum program". It provided a close cooperation between the individual museums to focus at different houses on main collections. So dominated exchange, sales and equalizing the acquisition policy in the interwar period. Thus resulting until today still valid collection trends. Also pointing the way was the relocation of the weapons collection from 1934 in its present premises in the New Castle, where since 1916 the collection of ancient musical instruments was placed.
With the change of the imperial collections in the ownership of the Republic the reorganization of the internal organization went hand in hand, too. Thus the museum was divided in 1919 into the
Egyptian and Near Eastern Collection (with the Oriental coins)
Collection of Classical Antiquities
Collection of ancient coins
Collection of modern coins and medals
Weapons collection
Collection of sculptures and crafts with the Collection of Ancient Musical Instruments
Picture Gallery
The Museum 1938-1945
Count Philipp Ludwig Wenzel Sinzendorf according to Rigaud. Clarisse 1948 by Baroness de Rothschildt "dedicated" to the memory of Baron Alphonse de Rothschildt; restituted to the Rothschilds in 1999, and in 1999 donated by Bettina Looram Rothschild, the last Austrian heiress.
With the "Anschluss" of Austria to the German Reich all Jewish art collections such as the Rothschilds were forcibly "Aryanised". Collections were either "paid" or simply distributed by the Gestapo at the museums. This resulted in a significant increase in stocks. But the KHM was not the only museum that benefited from the linearization. Systematically looted Jewish property was sold to museums, collections or in pawnshops throughout the empire.
After the war, the museum struggled to reimburse the "Aryanised" art to the owners or their heirs. They forced the Rothschild family to leave the most important part of their own collection to the museum and called this "dedications", or "donations". As a reason, was the export law stated, which does not allow owners to perform certain works of art out of the country. Similar methods were used with other former owners. Only on the basis of international diplomatic and media pressure, to a large extent from the United States, the Austrian government decided to make a change in the law (Art Restitution Act of 1998, the so-called Lex Rothschild). The art objects were the Rothschild family refunded only in the 1990s.
The Kunsthistorisches Museum operates on the basis of the federal law on the restitution of art objects from the 4th December 1998 (Federal Law Gazette I, 181 /1998) extensive provenance research. Even before this decree was carried out in-house provenance research at the initiative of the then archive director Herbert Haupt. This was submitted in 1998 by him in collaboration with Lydia Grobl a comprehensive presentation of the facts about the changes in the inventory levels of the Kunsthistorisches Museum during the Nazi era and in the years leading up to the State Treaty of 1955, an important basis for further research provenance.
The two historians Susanne Hehenberger and Monika Löscher are since 1st April 2009 as provenance researchers at the Kunsthistorisches Museum on behalf of the Commission for Provenance Research operating and they deal with the investigation period from 1933 to the recent past.
The museum today
Today the museum is as a federal museum, with 1st January 1999 released to the full legal capacity - it was thus the first of the state museums of Austria, implementing the far-reaching self-financing. It is by far the most visited museum in Austria with 1.3 million visitors (2007).
The Kunsthistorisches Museum is under the name Kunsthistorisches Museum and Museum of Ethnology and the Austrian Theatre Museum with company number 182081t since 11 June 1999 as a research institution under public law of the Federal virtue of the Federal Museums Act, Federal Law Gazette I/115/1998 and the Museum of Procedure of the Kunsthistorisches Museum and Museum of Ethnology and the Austrian Theatre Museum, 3 January 2001, BGBl II 2/ 2001, in force since 1 January 2001, registered.
In fiscal 2008, the turnover was 37.185 million EUR and total assets amounted to EUR 22.204 million. In 2008 an average of 410 workers were employed.
Management
1919-1923: Gustav Glück as the first chairman of the College of science officials
1924-1933: Hermann Julius Hermann 1924-1925 as the first chairman of the College of the scientific officers in 1925 as first director
1933: Arpad Weixlgärtner first director
1934-1938: Alfred Stix first director
1938-1945: Fritz Dworschak 1938 as acting head, from 1938 as a chief in 1941 as first director
1945-1949: August von Loehr 1945-1948 as executive director of the State Art Collections in 1949 as general director of the historical collections of the Federation
1945-1949: Alfred Stix 1945-1948 as executive director of the State Art Collections in 1949 as general director of art historical collections of the Federation
1949-1950: Hans Demel as administrative director
1950: Karl Wisoko-Meytsky as general director of art and historical collections of the Federation
1951-1952: Fritz Eichler as administrative director
1953-1954: Ernst H. Buschbeck as administrative director
1955-1966: Vincent Oberhammer 1955-1959 as administrative director, from 1959 as first director
1967: Edward Holzmair as managing director
1968-1972: Erwin Auer first director
1973-1981: Friderike Klauner first director
1982-1990: Hermann Fillitz first director
1990: George Kugler as interim first director
1990-2008: Wilfried Seipel as general director
Since 2009: Sabine Haag as general director
Collections
To the Kunsthistorisches Museum are also belonging the collections of the New Castle, the Austrian Theatre Museum in Palais Lobkowitz, the Museum of Ethnology and the Wagenburg (wagon fortress) in an outbuilding of Schönbrunn Palace. A branch office is also Ambras in Innsbruck.
Kunsthistorisches Museum (main building)
Picture Gallery
Egyptian and Near Eastern Collection
Collection of Classical Antiquities
Vienna Chamber of Art
Numismatic Collection
Library
New Castle
Ephesus Museum
Collection of Ancient Musical Instruments
Arms and Armour
Archive
Hofburg
The imperial crown in the Treasury
Imperial Treasury of Vienna
Insignia of the Austrian Hereditary Homage
Insignia of imperial Austria
Insignia of the Holy Roman Empire
Burgundian Inheritance and the Order of the Golden Fleece
Habsburg-Lorraine Household Treasure
Ecclesiastical Treasury
Schönbrunn Palace
Imperial Carriage Museum Vienna
Armory in Ambras Castle
Ambras Castle
Collections of Ambras Castle
Major exhibits
Among the most important exhibits of the Art Gallery rank inter alia:
Jan van Eyck: Cardinal Niccolò Albergati, 1438
Martin Schongauer: Holy Family, 1475-80
Albrecht Dürer : Trinity Altar, 1509-16
Portrait Johann Kleeberger, 1526
Parmigianino: Self Portrait in Convex Mirror, 1523/24
Giuseppe Arcimboldo: Summer 1563
Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio: Madonna of the Rosary 1606/ 07
Caravaggio: Madonna of the Rosary (1606-1607)
Titian: Nymph and Shepherd to 1570-75
Portrait of Jacopo de Strada, 1567/68
Raffaello Santi: Madonna of the Meadow, 1505 /06
Lorenzo Lotto: Portrait of a young man against white curtain, 1508
Peter Paul Rubens: The altar of St. Ildefonso, 1630-32
The Little Fur, about 1638
Jan Vermeer: The Art of Painting, 1665/66
Pieter Bruegel the Elder: Fight between Carnival and Lent, 1559
Kids, 1560
Tower of Babel, 1563
Christ Carrying the Cross, 1564
Gloomy Day (Early Spring), 1565
Return of the Herd (Autumn), 1565
Hunters in the Snow (Winter) 1565
Bauer and bird thief, 1568
Peasant Wedding, 1568/69
Peasant Dance, 1568/69
Paul's conversion (Conversion of St Paul), 1567
Cabinet of Curiosities:
Saliera from Benvenuto Cellini 1539-1543
Egyptian-Oriental Collection:
Mastaba of Ka Ni Nisut
Collection of Classical Antiquities:
Gemma Augustea
Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós
Gallery: Major exhibits
Carla Provost, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Robert Salesses, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense Integration and Defense Support of Civil Authorities, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense and Major General Michael T. McGuire, Adjutant General for Arizona, Director, Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs testify 20 June 2019 before the Congressional Subcommittee on Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations on Capitol Hill. The topic of the full committee hearing is: Examining the Department of Defense’s Deployment to the U.S.-Mexico Border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection photo by Jaime Rodriguez Sr.
Carla Provost, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Robert Salesses, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense Integration and Defense Support of Civil Authorities, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense and Major General Michael T. McGuire, Adjutant General for Arizona, Director, Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs testify 20 June 2019 before the Congressional Subcommittee on Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations on Capitol Hill. The topic of the full committee hearing is: Examining the Department of Defense’s Deployment to the U.S.-Mexico Border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection photo by Jaime Rodriguez Sr.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Field Operations, Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner John Wagner testified before the U.S. House of Representatives on the topic “About Face: Examining the Department of Homeland Security’s Use of Facial Recognition and Other Biometric Technologies, Part II”. Seen here is witness Dr. Charles Romine, Director of the Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Photographer: Donna Burton
Deputy Chief of the Border Patrol, CBP, Ronald D. Vitiello testifies on Border Security; examining the implications of S. 1691, the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform act of 2013 before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in Washington D.C. Photo by James Tourtellotte
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Acting Commissioner Mark A. Morgan testifies before the Senate Committee on CBP Oversight: Examing the Evolving Challenges Facing the Agency in Washington, D.C., June 25, 2020. CBP photos by Jaime Rodriguez Sr
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin K. McAleenan delivers testimony on immigration policy before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing titled Oversight of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Washington, D.C., Dec. 11, 2018. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Photo by Donna Burton
Artificial Intelligence animation style SEVEN, Nellie Pettis is one of the girls who testified at the trial of Leo Frank that his character for lasciviousness was bad.
Carla Provost, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Robert Salesses, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense Integration and Defense Support of Civil Authorities, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense and Major General Michael T. McGuire, Adjutant General for Arizona, Director, Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs testify 20 June 2019 before the Congressional Subcommittee on Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations on Capitol Hill. The topic of the full committee hearing is: Examining the Department of Defense’s Deployment to the U.S.-Mexico Border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection photo by Jaime Rodriguez Sr.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin K. McAleenan delivers testimony on immigration policy before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing titled Oversight of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Washington, D.C., Dec. 11, 2018. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Photo by Donna Burton
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Field Operations, Acting Assistant Commissioner John Wagner testifies at a hearing held in the Rayburn House Office Building "Examining the U.S. Public Health Response to the Ebola Outbreak".
Photo by James Tourtellotte
Dorothy Detzer, executive secretary of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, is shown testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs May 4, 1939.
Detzer headed the organization from 1924-46. She was a former relief officer for the American Friends Service Committee in Austria and Russian after World War I.
While in Washington as executive secretary of WILPF she, along with her assistant Dorothy Cook, organized a sit-in campaign attempting to desegregate the US. Capitol restaurants in 1934.
The six-month fight against Jim Crow in the Capitol’s restaurants began when U.S. Rep. Oscar DePriest’s (R-Il.) confidential secretary, Morris Lewis, was barred from the House public restaurant along with his son in January 1934.
Another instance of Jim Crow occurred when Mabel Byrd was forcibly removed from the Senate public restaurant in February.
The enforcement of Jim Crow in the Capitol building led to 10 days of small parties of interracial diners seeking service in the restaurants—sometimes successfully—in an attempt to desegregate the restaurants.
One of the interracial parties that Detzer led March 16th was composed of Cook, Dorothy Alden, and Afro American reporter Florence Collins.
The party waited to be seated, but when seats opened up the manager beckoned an all-white group.
Detzer then led Collins to two vacant seats at a long table that was partially occupied by white diners.
A waiter told the two they could not be served and Detzer asked for the manager.
A. E. Meaney, the manager of the Senate restaurant, told her if she sat at a separate table with the reporter she would be served. The exchange continued:
Meaney: You have no right to do this. You should have some respect and consideration for other white people in here. You have no business sitting here with these people, with your er, er, friend.
Detzer: I have been coming here for nine years and I have never been refused before.
Meaney: I cannot refuse to serve you.
Detzer: Then serve me.
Meaney: You mean serve you ---alone?
Detzer: Bring me my order, bring it here to me now.
Meaney stared for a few seconds.
Meaney: Ah, come now, you know you wouldn’t have me do that.
Detzer: Are you refusing to serve me?
Meaney: Oh, you know that isn’t right. Don’t have me do that. Take another table with the rest of your party and you will all get served.”
Meaney walked away shortly afterward and Detzer told Collins, “Sit tight, they can’t harm you. We’ll sit it out.”
After more time, a table for four opened up and the group was seated together. All were served.
Approximately 30 Howard University students came to the Capitol on March 17th attempting to gain service in the House and Senate restaurants but were barred by police. One was arrested at the Capitol and four others at the precinct house where they went to bail out their fellow student. Charges were all dropped later.
Some southern Democratic congressmen called for the students to be expelled and the president of the school, Mordecai Johnson, to be fired Romney chimed in calling for suspension of the 30 students saying they had “disgraced” the institution and should be punished.
Johnson brought the students to the faculty disciplinary committee for action recommending expulsions and/or suspensions. However, the chair of the committee, Ralph Bunche—a future Nobel prize winner—said they should be given medals instead. Bunche prevailed and no discipline was imposed on the students.
This series of protests marked the first sit-in demonstrations for civil rights in the nation’s capital and perhaps the country.
DePriest offered a resolution for an investigation that passed the House, but the investigating committee, the majority appointed by the Democratic Speaker of the House, found that the restaurant was a private one operated for the members of the House and their guests and therefore no discrimination occurred. This was despite the white public being admitted without a member of Congress and African Americans barred.
Speaker of the House Thomas Rainey (D-Il) let the clock run out as Congress adjourned in June to avoid a debate and vote on the issue.
Jim Crow continued in the Capitol for nearly 20 more years.
While head of WILPF, Detzer lobbied Congress for legislation to allow alien conscientious objectors to become U.S. citizens, to end lynching, for the removal of U.S. troops in Haiti and Nicaragua and for the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact.
Along with Mabel Vernon she coordinated the petition campaign that collected more than half a million U.S. signatures in support of universal disarmament.
For a detailed blog post on the fight against Jim Crow in the U.S. Capitol restaurants, see washingtonspark.wordpress.com/2018/02/26/origins-of-the-c...
For related images, see flic.kr/s/aHsmcArGZz
The photographer is unknown. The image is a Harris and Ewing photograph courtesy of the Library of Congress. Call Number: LC-H22-D- 6516 [P&P]
Tags
Carla Provost, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Robert Salesses, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense Integration and Defense Support of Civil Authorities, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense and Major General Michael T. McGuire, Adjutant General for Arizona, Director, Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs testify 20 June 2019 before the Congressional Subcommittee on Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations on Capitol Hill. The topic of the full committee hearing is: Examining the Department of Defense’s Deployment to the U.S.-Mexico Border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection photo by Jaime Rodriguez Sr.
Carla Provost, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Robert Salesses, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense Integration and Defense Support of Civil Authorities, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense and Major General Michael T. McGuire, Adjutant General for Arizona, Director, Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs testify 20 June 2019 before the Congressional Subcommittee on Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations on Capitol Hill. The topic of the full committee hearing is: Examining the Department of Defense’s Deployment to the U.S.-Mexico Border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection photo by Jaime Rodriguez Sr.
Customs and Border Protection Assistant Commissioner, Kevin McAleenan, testifies at the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Committee Affairs on "Evaluating Port Security: Progress Made and Challenges Ahead". Photo by James Tourtellotte.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Field Operations, Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner John Wagner testified before the U.S. House of Representatives on the topic “About Face: Examining the Department of Homeland Security’s Use of Facial Recognition and Other Biometric Technologies, Part II”. Other witnesses are Mr. Peter Mina, Deputy Officer for Programs and Compliance, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Dr. Charles Romine, Director of the Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Photographer: Donna Burton
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Acting Commissioner Mark A. Morgan testifies before the Senate Committee on CBP Oversight: Examing the Evolving Challenges Facing the Agency in Washington, D.C., June 25, 2020. CBP photos by Jaime Rodriguez Sr
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin K. McAleenan delivers testimony on immigration policy before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing titled Oversight of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Washington, D.C., Dec. 11, 2018. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Photo by Donna Burton
Customs and Border Protection Assistant Commissioner, Kevin McAleenan, testifies at the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on "Evaluating Port Security: Progress Made and Challenges Ahead". Photo by James Tourtellotte.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Field Operations, Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner John Wagner testified before the U.S. House of Representatives on the topic “About Face: Examining the Department of Homeland Security’s Use of Facial Recognition and Other Biometric Technologies, Part II”. Other witnesses are Mr. Peter Mina, Deputy Officer for Programs and Compliance, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Dr. Charles Romine, Director of the Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Photographer: Donna Burton
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Field Operations, Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner John Wagner testified before the U.S. House of Representatives on the topic “About Face: Examining the Department of Homeland Security’s Use of Facial Recognition and Other Biometric Technologies, Part II”. Chairman Jackson Lee speaks to the witnesses.
Photographer: Donna Burton
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Field Operations, Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner John Wagner testified before the U.S. House of Representatives on the topic “About Face: Examining the Department of Homeland Security’s Use of Facial Recognition and Other Biometric Technologies, Part II”. Other witnesses are Mr. Peter Mina, Deputy Officer for Programs and Compliance, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Dr. Charles Romine, Director of the Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Photographer: Donna Burton
Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, with Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, testifies before the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations on “A Review of the President’s Fiscal Year 24 Budget Request: Investing in U.S. Security, Competitiveness, and the Path Ahead for the U.S.-China Relationship,” on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on May 16, 2023. [State Department photo by Chuck Kennedy/ Public Domain]
Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, with Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, testifies before the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations on “A Review of the President’s Fiscal Year 24 Budget Request: Investing in U.S. Security, Competitiveness, and the Path Ahead for the U.S.-China Relationship,” on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on May 16, 2023. [State Department photo by Chuck Kennedy/ Public Domain]
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Acting Deputy Commissioner Thomas S. Winkowski testifies at the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management hearing on integrity at DHS on Thursday, May 17, 2012.
Photo by James Tourtellotte
On February 20, 2014, we traveled to Annapolis to testify before the Senate Finance Committee in support of Paid Sick Leave legislation for Maryland.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Field Operations, Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner John Wagner testified before the U.S. House of Representatives on the topic “About Face: Examining the Department of Homeland Security’s Use of Facial Recognition and Other Biometric Technologies, Part II”. Other witnesses are Mr. Peter Mina, Deputy Officer for Programs and Compliance, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Dr. Charles Romine, Director of the Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Photographer: Donna Burton
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Field Operations, Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner John Wagner testified before the U.S. House of Representatives on the topic “About Face: Examining the Department of Homeland Security’s Use of Facial Recognition and Other Biometric Technologies, Part II”. Other witnesses are Mr. Peter Mina, Deputy Officer for Programs and Compliance, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Dr. Charles Romine, Director of the Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Photographer: Donna Burton
Michael Weber, NRC deputy director for operations,(left) testifies May 14 on nuclear reactor decommissioning before the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.
For more info on Decommissioning visit the NRC's web page at www.nrc.gov/waste/decommissioning.html .
Watch the YouTube Video to learn more about Decommissioning at youtu.be/GifRku-N7_Q
Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, with Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, testifies before the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations on “A Review of the President’s Fiscal Year 24 Budget Request: Investing in U.S. Security, Competitiveness, and the Path Ahead for the U.S.-China Relationship,” on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on May 16, 2023. [State Department photo by Chuck Kennedy/ Public Domain]
was called in, and the trial began. Doc Joe testified that the animals were fat and in his opinion lazy. He said there were no charges of animal abuse here for UNDER feeding ... He'd have to leave it up to Officer Lena to decide if OVER feeding was a crime. And if he could make one recommendation, please sir? These cats should be on a weight reduction program.
"You don't care much about having two eyes do ya?" said Vincent, "You think we felines can't transmit telepathic messages to our kind all over the world? Well, maybe you'll believe me when you see what's on your pillow tonight."
Officer Lena testified that yes, well, she did have to agree that the cats seemed rather on the large side, but KiKi's haircut was really awful and well .. (what was it you wanted me to say Vincent?) .. oh yes I believe there's a new state law requiring tuna at least every third day and ...
Judge Darryl called on KiKi to come forward and testify but she refused, leaving Judge Darryl no choice but to drop that portion of the trial.
Vincent and Mister Mister kept interrupting Judge Darryl claiming if not starvation, at least not food up to their standards. Vincent snapped, "Why don't you just let her plead insanity, there's no question there!"
Judge Darryl, "Young lady / cat, what the heck are you anyway? I agree with Vincent, just plead insanity, then I won't have to think this one thru. Why, just why are you ordering cat food AGAIN when you still owe this feed bill of $6,782.47? What do you do with all this cat food anyway? "
"You honor, that's a lot of questions at one time, do you want me to start with insanity?", Kerry
"NO! Why are you buying all this cat food?", Judge
"Because sir, with 650 cats, that's what they eat EVERY month! They've eaten me out of house and home, your honor.", Kerry
"Six Hundred and Fifty cats! That's crazy! You are insane! Do you have any idea how many animals that is?", Judge
"Yes your honor, 650", Kerry
"Don't be a smart a...., isn't there a shelter or sanctuary or something you can call to get rid of all these cats?", Judge
"Sir, I AM the sanctuary, nobody else is going to take these cats, just look at Vincent, would you have him?", Kerry
"Hey, wait a minute, we can work this out, you don't want to give me away, I like it just fine living here at Rikki's, don't throw me out like trash!", Vincent.
"Young man, do I hear you say you like it just fine?", Judge.
"Yes sir, they're awfully good to me. Nobody else in the world wanted me. Or my 650 some odd buddies. Nobody. They just wanted to kill us. I know we can be naughty sometimes, but we don't deserve to die. If we didn't have Rikki's Refuge we'd all be dead. Please don't send us away. We love Rikki's.", Vincent
"What about this story of you never being fed .....?", Judge
"Well your honor, I'm sorry, it's just that the pantry is running low and I'm scared, I was starved as a kitten before I came to Rikki's and I can't bear the thought, and when the pantry gets low, and I thought ... well maybe you'd make her feed me tuna every day, I'm sorry sir", Vincent, "maybe we can just forget all this and we can go out for lunch now?"
"And what about these complaints of KiKi's haircut?", Judge
"Hmmm well anybody is entitled to a lousy do once in a while, after all ... looked in a mirror lately?", Vincent
Knowledge of the Accused of Crimes Committed in Sierra Leone.
126. The Accused testified that prior to becoming President, he was not following
whether crimes were committed by the RUF in Sierra Leone. The Trial Chamber found
that the relationship of the Accused with the RUF from 1989 until he became President
was much closer than he admitted. The Accused knew that during the early war years in
Sierra Leone, RUF soldiers, under the command of NPFL officers, abducted civilians
including children, forcing them to fight within the NPFL/RUF forces against the Sierra
Leonean forces and ULIMO. Moreover, the Accused was aware that the RUF captured
civilians and looted money during the attack on Sierra Rutile, and he advised Sankoh on
the use of the hostages and the money.
127. The Accused testified that, upon becoming President, he received a daily briefing
from his national security advisor, which would include press and intelligence reports.
Also, following his election, the Accused joined the ECOWAS Committee of Five and
would therefore have received and read ECOWAS reports. The numerous reports
prepared in 1997 by ECOWAS and the United Nations agencies establish that, as early as
May 1997, the crimes committed by the Junta were significantly reported by these
international organisations. In a report of June 1997, the United Nations Department of
Humanitarian Affairs reported killings of civilians, amputations and looting in Sierra
Leone. An ECOWAS report of the Committee of Four on the situation in Sierra Leone, in
August 1997, described the “massive looting of property, murder and rapes” following
the coup on 25 May 1997. The final report of the sixteenth meeting of ECOWAS Chiefs
of State in Abuja, Nigeria, in August 1997, a meeting in which the Liberian
representative participated, also described “a very bloody coup, followed by massive
looting and vandalisation of public and private properties and the opening of the prisons
by the junta”. In a speech to the Nation on 18 June 1997, the RUF forces themselves
32
apologised for the atrocities they had committed in Sierra Leone, including killings and
rapes.
128. Following the coup, on 29 August 1997 ECOWAS decided to place a total
embargo on all supplies of petroleum products, arms and military equipment to Sierra
Leone. Similarly, on 8 October 1997, the United Nations Security Council decided to
impose an embargo on arms and ammunitions to Sierra Leone. These embargos clearly
indicate that, at the very latest by August 1997, the Junta was perceived by the
international community as a threat to peace and it was recognized that military support
could facilitate the commission of the crimes described above.
129. The Accused was evasive in his testimony as to what and when he knew about the
crimes being committed in Sierra Leone. In light of these contemporary reports, and
considering the fact that the Accused received daily briefings from his national security
advisor about the international situation and was a member of the ECOWAS Committee
of Five, the Trial Chamber finds that as early as August 1997, Charles Taylor was
informed in detail of the crimes committed during the Junta period including murder,
abduction of civilians including children, rape, amputation and looting.
130. After 1997, the media coverage of the AFRC/RUF’s crimes and terror campaign
against the Sierra Leonean civilian population increased. Many reports and articles by
International Organisations, Non Governmental Organisations and newspapers admitted
into evidence describe the atrocities committed by the AFRC/RUF troops after the
ECOMOG Intervention and the end of the Junta Government. These public reports
demonstrate that at that time, it was public knowledge that AFRC/RUF forces committed
the following crimes: unlawful killings, sexual violence, physical violence, looting,
conscription and use of child soldiers, abduction, terrorism, and other atrocities.
131. The Accused himself admitted that by April 1998 if “someone was providing
support to the AFRC/RUF”, he “would be supporting a group engaged in a campaign of
atrocities against the civilian population of Sierra Leone”. At that time, as the Accused
testified, there were news reports of a “horrific campaign being waged against the civilian
population in Sierra Leone.” In a statement dated July 1998, the Accused “strongly
33
condemned the continuing rebel activities in Sierra Leone, as well as the horrendous
atrocities that had been committed there.”
132. Based on this evidence, and the testimony of the Accused himself, the Trial
Chamber finds that the Accused was aware of the crimes committed by RUF/AFRC
forces against civilians, including murder, abduction of civilian including children, rape,
amputation and looting, as early as August 1997 when he became President of Liberia.
Summary of Legal Findings
133. The Indictment charges the Accused with individual criminal responsibility
pursuant to Article 6.1 of the Statute for the crimes referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of
the Statute alleged in the Indictment. The Trial Chamber has found that the crimes
charged under Counts 1 to 11 of the Indictment were committed and now turns to the
responsibility of the Accused for these crimes.
Responsibility Pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Statute
134. The Indictment charges that the Accused is individually criminally responsible for
the crimes referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Statute as alleged in the Indictment by
virtue of holding positions of superior responsibility and exercising command and control
over subordinate members of the RUF, AFRC, AFRC/RUF Junta or alliance, and/or
Liberian fighters. It is alleged that the Accused is responsible for the criminal acts of his
subordinates in that he knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to
commit such acts or had done so and the Accused failed to take the necessary and
reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof.
135. The Accused denies criminal responsibility based on a superior/subordinate
relationship with the perpetrators of the crimes.
136. Article 6(3) holds a superior criminally responsible if the superior knew or had
reason to know that his or her subordinate was about to commit crimes prohibited by the
Statute or had done so, and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable
measures to prevent or punish the perpetrators. It must thus be demonstrated that the
34
superior had effective “command and control” over his subordinates – i.e. the material
ability to prevent or punish the commission of the offence.
137. The Trial Chamber is of the view that the Accused had substantial influence over
the leadership of the RUF, and to a lesser extent that of the AFRC. However, that
substantial influence over the conduct of others fell short of “effective command and
control” as demonstrated by the evidence.
138. The evidence establishes that from 1990 to March 1997 Sankoh was the sole
leader of the RUF and that he did not take orders from the Accused. When Sankoh was
arrested in March 1997 he appointed Bockarie to lead the RUF and instructed him to take
direction from the Accused.
139. The Trial Chamber finds that the Accused gave guidance, advice and direction to
Bockarie and to his successor, Issa Sesay, but that the evidence does not establish that
either of them was a subordinate of the Accused, nor that the Accused had effective
command and control over the RUF during their respective tenures. Similarly, the Trial
Chamber finds that the Accused gave guidance, advice and direction to Johnny Paul
Koroma when he was leader of the AFRC/RUF Junta, but the evidence does not establish
that he was a subordinate of the Accused, nor that the Accused had effective command
and control over the AFRC/RUF Junta.
140. With regard to Liberian fighters who were found to have participated in the
commission of crimes, the Trial Chamber finds that even if they were sent to Sierra
Leone by the Accused, there is insufficient evidence to find beyond a reasonable doubt
that they remained under the effective command and control of the Accused once in
Sierra Leone.
141. The Trial Chamber accordingly finds that the Prosecution failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the Accused is individually criminally responsible under Article
6(3) for the crimes referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Statute as alleged in the
Indictment.
35
Joint Criminal Enterprise
142. The Indictment charges the Accused with the crimes referred to in Articles 2, 3
and 4 of the Statute as alleged in the Indictment, which crimes amounted to or were
involved within a common plan, design or purpose in which the Accused participated, or
were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of such common plan, design or purpose.
143. As discussed earlier, the Trial Chamber found that the Prosecution failed to prove
that any of the three alleged meetings in Libya, Burkina Faso and Voinjama, where the
common plan is said to have been established, took place. Furthermore, while the Trial
Chamber found that the Accused provided significant operational and military support to
the RUF, particularly after he became President of Liberia, the evidence does not
establish that this support was provided pursuant to a common plan in the context of a
joint criminal enterprise.
144. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused is criminally responsible by virtue of having
participated in a common plan, design or purpose to commit the crimes alleged in the
Indictment.
Responsibility under Article 6(1) for Aiding and Abetting
145. The Indictment charges that the Accused, by his acts or omissions, is individually
criminally responsible pursuant to Article 6.1 of the Statute for (inter alia) aiding and
abetting the planning, preparation or execution of the crimes referred to in Articles 2, 3
and 4 of the Statute as alleged in the Indictment.
146. The Prosecution submits that in providing practical assistance, encouragement, or
moral support, the Accused’s acts had a substantial effect on the perpetration of the
crimes charged in the Indictment, and that he had a clear intent to act in support of those
crimes.
147. The Defence denies that the Accused is responsible for aiding and abetting the
commission of any of the crimes charged in the Indictment.
36
148. “Aiding and abetting” requires that the accused gave practical assistance,
encouragement, or moral support which had a substantial effect on the perpetration of a
crime.
149. The Trial Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused provided
arms and ammunition, military personnel, operational support, moral support and
ongoing guidance to the RUF, AFRC, AFRC/RUF Junta or alliance, and Liberian fighters
for military operations during the Indictment period.
Commission of crimes intrinsic to the RUF/AFRC’s war strategy.
150. Before turning to the various forms of assistance provided by the Accused, the
Trial Chamber considered the RUF/AFRC’s war strategy. Throughout the Indictment
period, the operational strategy of the RUF and AFRC was characterised by a campaign
of crimes against the Sierra Leonean civilian population, including murders, rapes,
sexual slavery, looting, abductions, forced labor, conscription of child soldiers,
amputations and other forms of physical violence and acts of terror. These crimes were
inextricably linked to how the RUF and AFRC achieved their political and military
objectives. In particular, under the leadership of Sam Bockarie, the RUF and AFRC
pursued a policy of committing crimes in order to achieve military gains at any civilian
cost, and also politically in order to attract the attention of the international community
and to heighten their negotiating stance with the Sierra Leonean government. That their
operations were given titles such as “Operation No Living Thing”, and “Operation Spare
No Soul” made explicit the intent of the RUF and AFRC to wage a campaign of terror
against civilians as part of their war strategy.
151. The findings of the Trial Chamber as to the various forms of assistance provided
by the Accused are as follows.
Arms and Ammunition
152. During the Indictment period, the Accused directly or through intermediaries
supplied or facilitated the supply of arms and ammunition to the RUF/AFRC. The
Accused sent small but regular supplies of arms and ammunition and other supplies to the
37
RUF from late 1997 to 1998 via his subordinates, and substantial amounts of arms and
ammunition to the AFRC/RUF from 1998 to 2001. The Accused facilitated much larger
shipments of arms and ammunition from third party states to the AFRC/RUF, including
the Magburaka shipment of October 1997 and the Burkina Faso shipment of
November/December 1998.
153. Also during the Indictment period, these arms and ammunition were used by the
RUF, AFRC, AFRC/RUF Junta or alliance, and Liberian fighters in military operations,
including the Junta mining operations at Tongo Fields prior to the ECOMOG
Intervention, “Operation Pay Yourself” and subsequent offensives in Kono District in
1998, and in the Freetown invasion in January 1999, and attacks on the outskirts of
Freetown and the Western Area in late January to early February 1999. These operations
involved widespread or systematic attacks on the civilian population and the commission
of crimes. The Trial Chamber finds that the provision and facilitation of these arms and
ammunition constituted practical assistance which had a substantial effect on the
perpetration of crimes by the RUF and RUF/AFRC during the Indictment period.
Military Personnel
154. The Accused also provided military personnel to the RUF/AFRC. The Accused
provided a group of 20 ex-NPFL fighters who had been integrated into the AFL. These
20 fighters fought in Karina and Kamalo in Bombali District in August/September 1998
as part of a group of 200 fighters. These 20 fighters were later on incorporated into the
Red Lion Battalion, which comprised of 200 fighters. The Red Lion Battalion was part of
a group of 1,000 fighters who participated in the invasion of Freetown and committed
crimes during the course of military operations in December 1998/January 1999.
155. The Accused reorganized, armed and sent former SLA fighters and Sierra
Leonean civilians who had retreated to Liberia back to Sierra Leone to fight in the Kono
and Freetown operation, and these men fought in the Kono operation in December 1998.
38
156. Moreover, the Accused sent Abu Keita and 150 fighters as reinforcements known
as the Scorpion Unit, who participated in the attack on Kono and Kenema Districts in late
1998/early 1999.
157. The Trial Chamber finds that the practical assistance provided by these military
personnel sent by the Accused had a substantial effect on the commission of crimes by
the RUF/AFRC during the course of military operations.
Operational Support
158. In the pre-Indictment period, NPFL radio operators and equipment were sent to
Sierra Leone, and RUF fighters were trained by the NPFL radio operators in radio
communications, with the knowledge of the Accused. The RUF continued to benefit into
the Indictment period from the enhanced communications capacity that resulted from this
assistance. However, as the acts of the Accused took place prior to the Indictment period,
the Trial Chamber has not taken them into account in determining criminal responsibility.
159. The Trial Chamber found that the Accused also provided operational support to
the RUF/AFRC during the Indictment period, including giving Sam Bockarie and Issa
Sesay satellite phones, and facilitating communications for the RUF through the NPFL’s
own communications network; providing the RUF/AFRC access to radio
communications equipment in Liberia; allowing the use of the radio station at Benjamin
Yeaten’s home for communications with Bockarie and later Sesay; and the transmission
of “448 messages” to RUF forces warning them of impending ECOMOG jet attacks,
which the Accused must have known about. This communications support provided
practical assistance to the RUF/AFRC for the crimes committed during the course of their
military operations throughout the Indictment period.
160. The Accused also provided financial support to the RUF/AFRC, including funds
to Bockarie of $10,000 to $20,000 at a time, on multiple occasions for the purchase of
arms from ULIMO. The Accused also kept diamonds and money in “safekeeping” for the
RUF/AFRC.
39
161. The Accused also provided a guesthouse to the RUF in Monrovia, which was
used by the RUF to facilitate the transfer of arms and funds from the Accused to the RUF
and the delivery of diamonds from the RUF to the Accused. The Trial Chamber
considers that the provision of the RUF guesthouse by the Accused, as a base of
operation for procurement and a way station for the transport of arms and ammunition,
provided practical assistance to the RUF/AFRC for the commission of crimes committed
during the course of military operations.
162. The Accused provided other forms of support to the RUF/AFRC, including the
provision of security escorts, facilitation of access through checkpoints, assistance with
transport of arms and ammunition by road and by air, safe haven and medical support for
treatment of wounded RUF fighters in Liberia, as well as provision of goods such as
food, clothing, cigarettes, alcohol and other supplies to the RUF. The Accused also sent
“herbalists” who marked fighters in Buedu and Kono to “protect” them against bullets
and bolster their confidence. Liberian forces also assisted the RUF/AFRC with the
capture and return of deserters to Sierra Leone.
163. The provision of such support, in addition to the military support provided,
constituted practical assistance to the RUF/AFRC which had a substantial effect on the
commission of crimes committed during the course of military operations.
Encouragement and Moral Support
164. The Trial Chamber has considered the ongoing communication and consultation
between the Accused and the RUF/AFRC leadership, and the ongoing advice and
encouragement that the Accused provided to the RUF/AFRC. He advised Sankoh to
participate in the Abidjan peace talks in 1996 in order to obtain arms and ammunition for
the RUF. He instructed the RUF to open a training base in Bunumbu in 1998, and to
construct an airfield in Buedu. He instructed the AFRC/RUF to capture Kono, and
subsequently advised them to hold and re-capture it, as a source of revenue through
diamonds that could be used to secure arms and ammunition. The Trial Chamber has
taken into account the position of authority of the Accused as an elder statesman and as
President of Liberia, the deference that was accorded to him by the RUF/AFRC
40
leadership and their reliance on his guidance, and the fact that his advice was generally
heeded by them.
165. Taken cumulatively, and having regard to the military support provided by the
Accused to the RUF/AFRC, the Trial Chamber finds that the practical assistance,
encouragement and moral support provided by the Accused had a substantial effect on
the commission of crimes by the RUF/AFRC during the course of military operations in
Sierra Leone.
The Accused
166. The essential mental element required for aiding and abetting is that the accused
knew that his acts would assist the commission of the crime by the perpetrator or that he
was aware of the substantial likelihood that his acts would assist the commission of a
crime by the perpetrator. In cases of specific intent crimes, such as acts of terrorism, the
accused must also be aware of the specific intent of the perpetrator.
167. As discussed earlier, the Trial Chamber is satisfied that as of August 1997, the
Accused knew of the atrocities being committed against civilians in Sierra Leone by the
RUF/AFRC forces and of their propensity to commit crimes. Notwithstanding such
knowledge, the Accused continued to provide support to the RUF and RUF/AFRC forces
during the period that crimes were being committed in Sierra Leone. The Trial Chamber
therefore finds beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused knew that his support to the
RUF/AFRC would provide practical assistance, encouragement or moral support to them
in the commission of crimes during the course of their military operations in Sierra
Leone.
Conclusion
168. For the foregoing reasons, the Trial Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that
the Accused is criminally responsible pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Statute for aiding
and abetting the commission of the crimes set forth in Counts 1 to 11 of the Indictment.
41
Planning
The Accused is charged with individual criminal responsibility pursuant to Article 6.1 of
the Statute for (inter alia) planning the crimes referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the
Statute as alleged in the Indictment.
169. The Prosecution submits that the Accused, acting jointly with RUF, AFRC and
Liberian subordinates, designed or organised the commission of crimes, at both the
preparatory and execution phases, by designing a strategy for the AFRC Junta, the RUF
and AFRC forces, including selecting strategic areas to attack and control, such as Kono
and the capital Freetown, and organizing the delivery of arms and ammunition needed to
carry out the attacks.
170. The Defence submits that the evidence put forward by the Prosecution does not
show that the Accused planned the commission of crimes or was aware of the substantial
likelihood of crimes as charged in the Indictment as part of the January 6 invasion of
Freetown, asserting that it was the AFRC, not the RUF, who executed and planned the
attack.
171. Criminal responsibility for planning requires that the accused, alone or with
others, intentionally planned the criminal conduct constituting the crimes charged, with
the intent that a crime be committed in the execution of that plan, or with the awareness
of the substantial likelihood that a crime would be committed in the execution of that
plan.
172. The Trial Chamber found that in November 1998, Sam Bockarie and the Accused
designed a two-pronged attack on Kono and Kenema, with Freetown as the ultimate
destination. This plan was conveyed to RUF and AFRC commanders in December 1998
at Waterworks in Kailahun District.
173. The plan designed by Bockarie and the Accused led to the attacks on Kono and
Makeni. In the course of the implementation of this plan, a small contingent of troops led
by Idrissa Kamara (a.k.a. Rambo Red Goat) reached Freetown and Bockarie’s forces got
to the outskirts of Freetown, where they met up with the forces led by Gullit. During the
42
course of the implementation of this plan, these forces committed the crimes charged in
the Indictment. These crimes resulted directly from the plan made by Bockarie and the
Accused in Monrovia. There was evidence that while in Monrovia, the Accused
instructed Bockarie to make the operation “fearful” in order to pressure the Government
of Sierra Leone into negotiations. Moreover, following the Waterworks meeting, the
Accused told Bockarie during a satellite phone conversation to use “all means” to get to
Freetown.
174. The Trial Chamber found that following the Waterworks meeting Bockarie told
SAJ Musa to attack Freetown but SAJ Musa refused to take orders from Bockarie and
continued on his own advance pursuant to a separate plan. The Trial Chamber found that
Gullit took over the leadership of the troops at Benguema following the death of SAJ
Musa. Bockarie then assumed effective control over Gullit and SAJ Musa’s plan was
abandoned for the Bockarie/Taylor plan, as conveyed by Bockarie at Waterworks.
Further execution of the plan was carried out with close coordination between Bockarie
and Gullit, with Gullit in frequent communication with Bockarie and with Gullit taking
orders from Bockarie. In these circumstances, the Trial Chamber finds that the
Bockarie/Taylor plan substantially contributed to the commission of crimes committed by
Gullit’s forces while Gullit was operating under Bockarie’s command.
175. The Accused, having drawn up the plan with Bockarie, and having followed its
implementation closely via daily communication with Bockarie, either directly or through
Yeaten, was aware of its continuing evolution.
176. As mentioned previously, the Accused was well aware of the crimes committed
by the AFRC/RUF forces in the course of their military operations, and that their war
strategy was explicitly based on a widespread or systematic campaign of crimes against
civilians. Moreover, by his instruction to make the operation “fearful”, which was
repeated many times by Bockarie during the course of the Freetown invasion, and by his
instruction to use “all means”, the Accused demonstrated his awareness of the substantial
likelihood that crimes would be committed in the execution of the plan.
177. For the foregoing reasons the Trial Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that
the Accused is criminally responsible pursuant to Article 6(1) for planning the crimes
43
committed by members of the RUF, AFRC, AFRC/RUF Junta or alliance and Liberian
fighters in the attacks on Kono and Makeni, in the invasion of Freetown and during the
retreat from Freetown.
Ordering
178. The Trial Chamber has found that while the Accused held a position of authority
amongst the RUF and RUF/AFRC, the instructions and guidance which he gave to the
RUF and RUF/AFRC were generally of an advisory nature and at times were in fact not
followed by the RUF/AFRC leadership. For these reasons, the Trial Chamber finds that
the Accused cannot be held responsible for ordering the commission of crimes.
Instigating
179. The Trial Chamber, having already found that the Accused is criminally
responsible for aiding and abetting the commission of the crimes in Counts 1-11 of the
Indictment, does not find that the Accused also instigated those crimes.
DISPOSITION
180. This brings me to the verdict. I will ask the Accused, Charles Ghankay Taylor, to
please stand.
181. Having considered all the evidence and the arguments of the parties, the Statute
and the Rules, and based upon the findings as determined by the Trial Chamber in its
Judgement, the Trial Chamber unanimously finds you guilty of aiding and abetting the
commission of the following crimes pursuant to Article 6.1 of the Statute during the
Indictment period, and planning the commission of the following crimes in the attacks
on Kono and Makeni in December 1998, and in the invasion of and retreat from Freetown
between December 1998 and February 1999:
44
Count 1: Acts of terrorism, a violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions
and of Additional Protocol II pursuant to Article 3(d) of the Statute.
Count 2: Murder, a crime against humanity pursuant to Article 2(a) of the Statute.
Count 3: Violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in
particular murder, a violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of
Additional Protocol II pursuant to Article 3(a) of the Statute.
Count 4: Rape, a crime against humanity, punishable under Article 2(g) of the Statute.
Count 5: Sexual slavery, a crime against humanity, punishable under Article 2(g) of the
Statute.
Count 6: Outrages upon personal dignity, a violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva
Conventions and of Additional Protocol II pursuant to Article 3(e) of the Statute.
Count 7: Violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in
particular cruel treatment, a violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions
and of Additional Protocol II pursuant to Article 3(a) of the Statute
Count 8: Other inhumane acts, a crime against humanity pursuant to Article 2(i) of the
Statute.
Count 9: Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 years into armed forces
or groups, or using them to participate actively in hostilities, another serious violation of
international humanitarian law pursuant to Article 4(c) of the Statute.
Count 10: Enslavement, a crime against humanity pursuant to Article 2 (c) of the Statute.
Count 11: Pillage, a violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of
Additional Protocol II pursuant to Article 3(f) of the Statute.
------------
(END)
44
Deputy Chief Ron Vitiello testifies at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce hearing on, “Examining the Use and Abuse of Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO) at the Department of Homeland Security. Photo By James Tourtellotte.
Michael Weber, NRC deputy director for operations, (below on left) testifies May 14 on nuclear reactor decommissioning before the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.
For more info on Decommissioning visit the NRC's web page at www.nrc.gov/waste/decommissioning.html .
Watch the YouTube Video to learn more about Decommissioning at youtu.be/GifRku-N7_Q
Luca Giordano (1634-1705), active in Naples, Florence and Madrid
The Archangel Michael overthrows the apostate angels, around 1664
When a part of the angels rebelled against God, they were overthrown by the Archangel Michael into the abyss of hell. The desperately screaming, distorted faces of the defeated angels - now turned into devils - testify to the stark realism of the Spanish-Neapolitan court painter Jusepe de Ribera. In the refined colorfulness of Michael, too, the work is dominated by the Venetian influenced palette of Ribera. The altarpiece, whose original destination is unknown, was in the late 18th century taken from the Viennese Minorite Church to the Imperial Gallery.
Luca Giordano (1634-1705), tätig in Neapel, Florenz und Madrid
Der Erzengel Michael stürzt die abtrünnigen Engel, um 1664
Als sich ein Teil der Engel gegen Gott empörte, wurden diese vom Erzengel Michael in den Abgrund der Hölle gestürzt. Die verzweifelt schreienden, verzerrten Gesichter der besiegten Engel - nun zu Teufeln geworden - zeugen vom krassen Realismus des spanisch-neapolitanischen Hofmalers Jusepe de Ribera. Auch in der raffinierten Farbigkeit des Michael ist das Werk von der venezianisch beeinflussten Palette Riberas bestimmt. Das Altarbild, dessen ursprünglicher Bestimmungsort unbekannt ist, wurde im späten 18. Jahrhundert aus der Wiener Minoritenkirche in die kaiserliche Gemäldegalerie gebracht.
Austria Kunsthistorisches Museum
Federal Museum
Logo KHM
Regulatory authority (ies)/organs to the Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture
Founded 17 October 1891
Headquartered Castle Ring (Burgring), Vienna 1, Austria
Management Sabine Haag
www.khm.at website
Main building of the Kunsthistorisches Museum at Maria-Theresa-Square
The Kunsthistorisches Museum (KHM abbreviated) is an art museum in Vienna. It is one of the largest and most important museums in the world. It was opened in 1891 and 2012 visited of 1.351.940 million people.
The museum
The Kunsthistorisches Museum is with its opposite sister building, the Natural History Museum (Naturhistorisches Museum), the most important historicist large buildings of the Ringstrasse time. Together they stand around the Maria Theresa square, on which also the Maria Theresa monument stands. This course spans the former glacis between today's ring road and 2-line, and is forming a historical landmark that also belongs to World Heritage Site Historic Centre of Vienna.
History
Archduke Leopold Wilhelm in his Gallery
The Museum came from the collections of the Habsburgs, especially from the portrait and armor collections of Ferdinand of Tyrol, the collection of Emperor Rudolf II (most of which, however scattered) and the art collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm into existence. Already In 1833 asked Joseph Arneth, curator (and later director) of the Imperial Coins and Antiquities Cabinet, bringing together all the imperial collections in a single building .
Architectural History
The contract to build the museum in the city had been given in 1858 by Emperor Franz Joseph. Subsequently, many designs were submitted for the ring road zone. Plans by August Sicard von Sicardsburg and Eduard van der Null planned to build two museum buildings in the immediate aftermath of the Imperial Palace on the left and right of the Heroes' Square (Heldenplatz). The architect Ludwig Förster planned museum buildings between the Schwarzenberg Square and the City Park, Martin Ritter von Kink favored buildings at the corner Währingerstraße/ Scots ring (Schottenring), Peter Joseph, the area Bellariastraße, Moritz von Loehr the south side of the opera ring, and Ludwig Zettl the southeast side of the grain market (Getreidemarkt).
From 1867, a competition was announced for the museums, and thereby set their current position - at the request of the Emperor, the museum should not be too close to the Imperial Palace, but arise beyond the ring road. The architect Carl von Hasenauer participated in this competition and was able the at that time in Zürich operating Gottfried Semper to encourage to work together. The two museum buildings should be built here in the sense of the style of the Italian Renaissance. The plans got the benevolence of the imperial family. In April 1869, there was an audience with of Joseph Semper at the Emperor Franz Joseph and an oral contract was concluded, in July 1870 was issued the written order to Semper and Hasenauer.
Crucial for the success of Semper and Hasenauer against the projects of other architects were among others Semper's vision of a large building complex called "Imperial Forum", in which the museums would have been a part of. Not least by the death of Semper in 1879 came the Imperial Forum not as planned for execution, the two museums were built, however.
Construction of the two museums began without ceremony on 27 November 1871 instead. Semper moved to Vienna in the sequence. From the beginning, there were considerable personal differences between him and Hasenauer, who finally in 1877 took over sole construction management. 1874, the scaffolds were placed up to the attic and the first floor completed, built in 1878, the first windows installed in 1879, the Attica and the balustrade from 1880 to 1881 and built the dome and the Tabernacle. The dome is topped with a bronze statue of Pallas Athena by Johannes Benk.
The lighting and air conditioning concept with double glazing of the ceilings made the renunciation of artificial light (especially at that time, as gas light) possible, but this resulted due to seasonal variations depending on daylight to different opening times .
Kuppelhalle
Entrance (by clicking the link at the end of the side you can see all the pictures here indicated!)
Grand staircase
Hall
Empire
The Kunsthistorisches Museum was on 17 October 1891 officially opened by Emperor Franz Joseph I. Since 22 October 1891 , the museum is accessible to the public. Two years earlier, on 3 November 1889, the collection of arms, Arms and Armour today, had their doors open. On 1 January 1890 the library service resumed its operations. The merger and listing of other collections of the Highest Imperial Family from the Upper and Lower Belvedere, the Hofburg Palace and Ambras in Tyrol will need another two years.
189, the farm museum was organized in seven collections with three directorates:
Directorate of coins, medals and antiquities collection
The Egyptian Collection
The Antique Collection
The coins and medals collection
Management of the collection of weapons, art and industrial objects
Weapons collection
Collection of industrial art objects
Directorate of Art Gallery and Restaurieranstalt (Restoration Office)
Collection of watercolors, drawings, sketches, etc.
Restoration Office
Library
Very soon the room the Court Museum (Hofmuseum) for the imperial collections was offering became too narrow. To provide temporary help, an exhibition of ancient artifacts from Ephesus in the Theseus Temple was designed. However, additional space had to be rented in the Lower Belvedere.
1914, after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne, his " Estonian Forensic Collection " passed to the administration of the Court Museum. This collection, which emerged from the art collection of the house of d' Este and world travel collection of Franz Ferdinand, was placed in the New Imperial Palace since 1908. For these stocks, the present collection of old musical instruments and the Museum of Ethnology emerged.
The First World War went by, apart from the oppressive economic situation without loss. The farm museum remained during the five years of war regularly open to the public.
Until 1919 the K.K. Art Historical Court Museum was under the authority of the Oberstkämmereramt (head chamberlain office) and belonged to the House of Habsburg-Lorraine. The officials and employees were part of the royal household.
First Republic
The transition from monarchy to republic, in the museum took place in complete tranquility. On 19 November 1918 the two imperial museums on Maria Theresa Square were placed under the state protection of the young Republic of German Austria. Threatening to the stocks of the museum were the claims raised in the following weeks and months of the "successor states" of the monarchy as well as Italy and Belgium on Austrian art collection. In fact, it came on 12th February 1919 to the violent removal of 62 paintings by armed Italian units. This "art theft" left a long time trauma among curators and art historians.
It was not until the Treaty of Saint-Germain of 10 September 1919, providing in Article 195 and 196 the settlement of rights in the cultural field by negotiations. The claims of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Italy again could mostly being averted in this way. Only Hungary, which presented the greatest demands by far, was met by more than ten years of negotiation in 147 cases.
On 3 April 1919 was the expropriation of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine by law and the acquisition of its property, including the "Collections of the Imperial House" , by the Republic. Of 18 June 1920 the then provisional administration of the former imperial museums and collections of Este and the secular and clergy treasury passed to the State Office of Internal Affairs and Education, since 10 November 1920, the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Education. A few days later it was renamed the Art History Court Museum in the "Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna State", 1921 "Kunsthistorisches Museum" . Of 1st January 1921 the employees of the museum staff passed to the state of the Republic.
Through the acquisition of the former imperial collections owned by the state, the museum found itself in a complete new situation. In order to meet the changed circumstances in the museum area, designed Hans Tietze in 1919 the "Vienna Museum program". It provided a close cooperation between the individual museums to focus at different houses on main collections. So dominated exchange, sales and equalizing the acquisition policy in the interwar period. Thus resulting until today still valid collection trends. Also pointing the way was the relocation of the weapons collection from 1934 in its present premises in the New Castle, where since 1916 the collection of ancient musical instruments was placed.
With the change of the imperial collections in the ownership of the Republic the reorganization of the internal organization went hand in hand, too. Thus the museum was divided in 1919 into the
Egyptian and Near Eastern Collection (with the Oriental coins)
Collection of Classical Antiquities
Collection of ancient coins
Collection of modern coins and medals
Weapons collection
Collection of sculptures and crafts with the Collection of Ancient Musical Instruments
Picture Gallery
The Museum 1938-1945
Count Philipp Ludwig Wenzel Sinzendorf according to Rigaud. Clarisse 1948 by Baroness de Rothschildt "dedicated" to the memory of Baron Alphonse de Rothschildt; restituted to the Rothschilds in 1999, and in 1999 donated by Bettina Looram Rothschild, the last Austrian heiress.
With the "Anschluss" of Austria to the German Reich all Jewish art collections such as the Rothschilds were forcibly "Aryanised". Collections were either "paid" or simply distributed by the Gestapo at the museums. This resulted in a significant increase in stocks. But the KHM was not the only museum that benefited from the linearization. Systematically looted Jewish property was sold to museums, collections or in pawnshops throughout the empire.
After the war, the museum struggled to reimburse the "Aryanised" art to the owners or their heirs. They forced the Rothschild family to leave the most important part of their own collection to the museum and called this "dedications", or "donations". As a reason, was the export law stated, which does not allow owners to perform certain works of art out of the country. Similar methods were used with other former owners. Only on the basis of international diplomatic and media pressure, to a large extent from the United States, the Austrian government decided to make a change in the law (Art Restitution Act of 1998, the so-called Lex Rothschild). The art objects were the Rothschild family refunded only in the 1990s.
The Kunsthistorisches Museum operates on the basis of the federal law on the restitution of art objects from the 4th December 1998 (Federal Law Gazette I, 181 /1998) extensive provenance research. Even before this decree was carried out in-house provenance research at the initiative of the then archive director Herbert Haupt. This was submitted in 1998 by him in collaboration with Lydia Grobl a comprehensive presentation of the facts about the changes in the inventory levels of the Kunsthistorisches Museum during the Nazi era and in the years leading up to the State Treaty of 1955, an important basis for further research provenance.
The two historians Susanne Hehenberger and Monika Löscher are since 1st April 2009 as provenance researchers at the Kunsthistorisches Museum on behalf of the Commission for Provenance Research operating and they deal with the investigation period from 1933 to the recent past.
The museum today
Today the museum is as a federal museum, with 1st January 1999 released to the full legal capacity - it was thus the first of the state museums of Austria, implementing the far-reaching self-financing. It is by far the most visited museum in Austria with 1.3 million visitors (2007).
The Kunsthistorisches Museum is under the name Kunsthistorisches Museum and Museum of Ethnology and the Austrian Theatre Museum with company number 182081t since 11 June 1999 as a research institution under public law of the Federal virtue of the Federal Museums Act, Federal Law Gazette I/115/1998 and the Museum of Procedure of the Kunsthistorisches Museum and Museum of Ethnology and the Austrian Theatre Museum, 3 January 2001, BGBl II 2/ 2001, in force since 1 January 2001, registered.
In fiscal 2008, the turnover was 37.185 million EUR and total assets amounted to EUR 22.204 million. In 2008 an average of 410 workers were employed.
Management
1919-1923: Gustav Glück as the first chairman of the College of science officials
1924-1933: Hermann Julius Hermann 1924-1925 as the first chairman of the College of the scientific officers in 1925 as first director
1933: Arpad Weixlgärtner first director
1934-1938: Alfred Stix first director
1938-1945: Fritz Dworschak 1938 as acting head, from 1938 as a chief in 1941 as first director
1945-1949: August von Loehr 1945-1948 as executive director of the State Art Collections in 1949 as general director of the historical collections of the Federation
1945-1949: Alfred Stix 1945-1948 as executive director of the State Art Collections in 1949 as general director of art historical collections of the Federation
1949-1950: Hans Demel as administrative director
1950: Karl Wisoko-Meytsky as general director of art and historical collections of the Federation
1951-1952: Fritz Eichler as administrative director
1953-1954: Ernst H. Buschbeck as administrative director
1955-1966: Vincent Oberhammer 1955-1959 as administrative director, from 1959 as first director
1967: Edward Holzmair as managing director
1968-1972: Erwin Auer first director
1973-1981: Friderike Klauner first director
1982-1990: Hermann Fillitz first director
1990: George Kugler as interim first director
1990-2008: Wilfried Seipel as general director
Since 2009: Sabine Haag as general director
Collections
To the Kunsthistorisches Museum are also belonging the collections of the New Castle, the Austrian Theatre Museum in Palais Lobkowitz, the Museum of Ethnology and the Wagenburg (wagon fortress) in an outbuilding of Schönbrunn Palace. A branch office is also Ambras in Innsbruck.
Kunsthistorisches Museum (main building)
Picture Gallery
Egyptian and Near Eastern Collection
Collection of Classical Antiquities
Vienna Chamber of Art
Numismatic Collection
Library
New Castle
Ephesus Museum
Collection of Ancient Musical Instruments
Arms and Armour
Archive
Hofburg
The imperial crown in the Treasury
Imperial Treasury of Vienna
Insignia of the Austrian Hereditary Homage
Insignia of imperial Austria
Insignia of the Holy Roman Empire
Burgundian Inheritance and the Order of the Golden Fleece
Habsburg-Lorraine Household Treasure
Ecclesiastical Treasury
Schönbrunn Palace
Imperial Carriage Museum Vienna
Armory in Ambras Castle
Ambras Castle
Collections of Ambras Castle
Major exhibits
Among the most important exhibits of the Art Gallery rank inter alia:
Jan van Eyck: Cardinal Niccolò Albergati, 1438
Martin Schongauer: Holy Family, 1475-80
Albrecht Dürer : Trinity Altar, 1509-16
Portrait Johann Kleeberger, 1526
Parmigianino: Self Portrait in Convex Mirror, 1523/24
Giuseppe Arcimboldo: Summer 1563
Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio: Madonna of the Rosary 1606/ 07
Caravaggio: Madonna of the Rosary (1606-1607)
Titian: Nymph and Shepherd to 1570-75
Portrait of Jacopo de Strada, 1567/68
Raffaello Santi: Madonna of the Meadow, 1505 /06
Lorenzo Lotto: Portrait of a young man against white curtain, 1508
Peter Paul Rubens: The altar of St. Ildefonso, 1630-32
The Little Fur, about 1638
Jan Vermeer: The Art of Painting, 1665/66
Pieter Bruegel the Elder: Fight between Carnival and Lent, 1559
Kids, 1560
Tower of Babel, 1563
Christ Carrying the Cross, 1564
Gloomy Day (Early Spring), 1565
Return of the Herd (Autumn), 1565
Hunters in the Snow (Winter) 1565
Bauer and bird thief, 1568
Peasant Wedding, 1568/69
Peasant Dance, 1568/69
Paul's conversion (Conversion of St Paul), 1567
Cabinet of Curiosities:
Saliera from Benvenuto Cellini 1539-1543
Egyptian-Oriental Collection:
Mastaba of Ka Ni Nisut
Collection of Classical Antiquities:
Gemma Augustea
Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós
Gallery: Major exhibits