Autriche , n o 40016/98, §§ 25-28, CEDH 2003 ‑ IX, et Paposhvili c.   Belgique   [GC] n o 41738/10, §§ 129-133, 13 décembre 2016). 39.

Papuashvili of the Ministry of Justice. 3.

in the preventive purpose of Article 3 and that it is not a matter of requiring the persons concerned to provide clear proof of their claim that they would be exposed to proscribed treatment (see Paposhvili

Russia , no. 38887/09, §§ 31-34, 8   October   2015; and Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], no. 41738/10, § 126, ECHR 2016).

; JUDGMENT   Art 3 • Expulsion of foreign national with schizophrenia to his country of origin, without health risks reaching high threshold for application of Art   3 • Confirmation of Paposhvili

in the preventive purpose of Article 3 and that it is not a matter of requiring the persons concerned to provide clear proof of their claim that they would be exposed to proscribed treatment (see Paposhvili

  38887/09, §§ 31-34, 8   October 2015; and   Paposhvili v. Belgium   [GC], no.   41738/10, § 126, ECHR 2016).

in the preventive purpose of Article 3 and that it is not a matter of requiring the persons concerned to provide clear proof of their claim that they would be exposed to proscribed treatment (see Paposhvili

[GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 XII; see also Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 79, ECHR 2016, with further references, and Paposhvili v.

  Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §   97, 20   October 2016; Paposhvili v.

in the preventive purpose of Article 3 and that it is not a matter of requiring the persons concerned to provide clear proof of their claim that they would be exposed to proscribed treatment (see Paposhvili

Latvia (dec.), nos. 45520/04 and 19363/05, § 172, 25 November 2014; and Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], no. 41738/10, § 126, ECHR 2016).

Latvia (dec.), nos. 45520/04 and 19363/05, § 172, 25   November 2014; and Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], no. 41738/10, § 126, ECHR 2016).