What Article 175 of the Criminal Code punishes
Article 175 punishes a public authority or official who, abusing their position, commits an outrage against a person's moral integrity that does not reach the seriousness required for torture under Article 174. It is therefore a residual, subsidiary offence within Title VII: it applies only "outside the cases covered" by torture, that is, where the treatment seriously undermines the victim's dignity but lacks either the specific purpose (obtaining a confession or information, punishing for an act committed or suspected, or discrimination) or the intensity that characterises Article 174.
The offender must hold the status of public authority or official and act by abusing their position: the conduct must connect, even if improperly, with the exercise of public functions. Where the outrage against moral integrity is committed by a private individual, or by an authority acting without abuse of office, the applicable offence is the general one under Article 173.1.
Penalties
The provision distinguishes by seriousness: two to four years' imprisonment if the outrage is serious, and six months to two years' imprisonment if it is not. In both cases, in addition to imprisonment, the offender always receives special disqualification from public employment or office for two to four years, imposed cumulatively with no fine alternative in the text.
How it relates to Articles 174, 176 and 177
Article 175 sits between torture under Article 174 — reserved for the most serious, purpose-driven cases — and the general offence under Article 173. Article 176 extends the same penalties to an authority or official who, failing in the duties of their post, allows others to carry out these acts, punishing the omissive form of connivance. And Article 177 resolves the overlap where, besides the outrage against moral integrity, injury or harm is caused to the victim's or a third party's life, physical integrity, health, sexual freedom or property: in that case the acts are punished separately with whatever penalty corresponds to each, unless the law already punishes that outcome specifically within the offence itself.
Defence strategy
A defence against an Article 175 charge usually focuses on how the seriousness of the outrage is classified — since that determines which penalty bracket applies —, on whether there was a genuine abuse of office or whether the conduct is explained by the legitimate exercise of disciplinary or coercive powers inherent in the post (proportionate use of force, security measures), and on the boundary with Article 174 where the prosecution seeks to elevate the facts to torture without its specific purpose being present. The moral integrity crimes defence service develops these criteria.