Criminal responsibility is imposed on those who have already committed a crime. They are aware of what they are doing and have already committed their free will. Therefore, criminal responsibility is not in the case of necessity and coercion, which can be defined as an external circumstance that involves a threat to the person and compels him to commit a criminal act in order to protect himself Or the same or other property, and stipulate in case of necessity the inability of the defendant to pay the danger only when such a prohibited act, such as a doctor who is forced by a difficult birth process to sacrifice the life of the fetus in order to preserve the mother's life, To clash with others It leads to harm him, or who steals bread to save his life was nearing death by starvation.

In Islamic legislation, the best example of lifting responsibility in the case of necessity and coercion, has raised the duty of fasting for the patient and the traveler did not cost the poor pilgrimage, and Caliph Omar bin Khattab did not fall into the hands of the thief in the year of famine.

The case of necessity and coercion was mentioned in the UAE Penal Code in article 64 which said:

A person who commits a crime is not criminally liable to the need to protect himself or his property or the same person or his property from a serious danger that is about to occur.

Nor is he criminally liable for the commission of a crime because of physical or mental coercion.

In the cases provided for in the preceding two paragraphs, the perpetrator's ability to prevent the danger by another means and the crime is not necessary to be paid and proportionate.

According to the above article we can determine the conditions must be available in the circumstance or situation to be a case of necessity and coercion and these conditions are:

- There is a serious risk of self-harm or money:

Serious danger is the irremediable danger such as death, permanent disability and malformation; simple notification is not necessarily necessary, such as wounds, bruises, and minor physical defects. In other words, the grave danger is the risk that can not be remedied or repaired. Human rights such as life, body, freedom, display, honor and consideration, and money includes all financial rights of economic value, which fall into the circle of dealing.

- The danger is imminent:

That is, if the danger is unavoidable if it does not take place at the time that it is surrounded, avoided or avoided, and the danger is imminent, if it is about to occur or has begun, but it is not yet over, and it is not clear if it has occurred and is or is expected to occur In the future, in this case there is ample time to take the necessary steps to prevent the danger by other means without resorting to the commission of the crime.

- Lack of prior knowledge of danger and non-direction of the will of the offender to:

 Because the necessity requires a surprise that affects the freedom of choice, as it does not leave the person who has time to manage the matter in order to get rid of danger.

If the defendant intentionally caused the danger, it means that he anticipated the danger, and it is assumed that he prepared the kit to avoid it in a way that does not affect the third party in themselves or in their money. For example, a ship drowning deliberately and then having to save himself to pay someone outside the ship , This is not a necessity.

- The risk can not be paid by another means:

We should not be in a state of necessity unless the crime of necessity is the only means of preventing serious danger. The oppressor has no other legitimate means or other means to repel and prevent this danger.

One example of paying the risk by another means was to ask for medical treatment for a patient who could have taken him to a hospital or a specialist.

- The act is commensurate with the danger:

It is not permissible for the defendant to come in a more serious case than is sufficient to prevent the danger. The act is outside the scope of necessity. Whoever can pay the risk with a crime against money and commits a crime against the self for which there is no requirement of proportionality. He can rescue the passengers of the ship by throwing part of the cargo but instead some of its passengers are thrown into the sea, asking for it, and does not benefit from the state of necessity.

Therefore, we have enumerated the conditions that must be met in case of necessity and coercion, which requires the criminal responsibility of the offender to fall in this case. It is clear from this that the UAE legislator deliberately dropped the criminal liability of the criminal of necessity but specified specific conditions to consider the case as a necessary crime. The objectivity of the legislator, who was directed to indicate all the circumstances of the crime and the extent of the defendant's freedom of administration and choice.