证人出庭作证有助于查明事实真相，在民事在线庭审过程中占有重要地位。新出台的《人民法院在线诉讼规则》为民事在线庭审中证人远程作证确立了原则性规定，但在司法实践中仍存在一些问题，影响了证人远程作证的效果。

第一部分是民事在线庭审中证人远程作证的概述。证人远程作证是指利用现代音像传输技术，在庭审中建立与证人之间的实时互联，并结合特有的作证制度使证人充分参与庭审的作证方式。民事在线庭审中证人远程作证具备技术依赖性、跨时空性和监管困难性等多项特征。从境内发展来看，证人远程作证有助于保障证人的人身安全权和经济补偿权，但是也对直接言词原则、司法权威和审判公开原则提出了挑战。从境外经验来看，证人远程作证须通过多元化权利的配置来落实权利保障，其价值理念应当以程序公正为主，并应当扩大远程作证的适用范围。

第二部分是民事在线庭审中证人远程作证的实践形式、法律规则及价值理念。民事在线庭审中证人远程作证在我国目前存在三种形式：吉林电子法院形式、互联网法院形式和浙江移动微法院形式。证人远程作证应当遵循证人出庭义务、证人作证隔离和证人作证真实等一般性规则，且在这一程序中程序公正是首要价值，其位阶高于程序效益和庭审秩序。

第三部分是我国民事在线庭审中证人远程作证的困境及原因分析。通过前文梳理可发现：在集中审理模式下主要存在证人出庭率不高、对审判公开原则有所减损、线上作证与线下作证之间的转换规则不明确等困境；在异步审理模式下主要存在忽视证人作证隔离规则、违背言词原则、破坏当事人对证人证言的质证权等困境；而这两种模式下共同存在法庭秩序容易受到冲击、对证人缺少程序性保障和存在数字鸿沟等困境。每一困境背后都存在着相对复杂的原因。

第四部分是我国民事在线庭审中证人远程作证困境的完善建议。在一般性规则和程序公正价值理念的指导下，对集中审理模式来说，应明确远程作证的优先适用规则、完善证人远程作证下的庭审延迟公开规则和证人线上线下作证转换规则；对异步审理模式来说，应重新定义其中“证言”的证据类型，并借鉴“斯图加特模式”设置集中言词辩论程序；从这两种模式共通性角度来看，都应完善监管惩戒规则、完善证人程序选择权的配置以及完善技术和配套设施建设。通过上述分析和尝试，以期对相关研究尽绵薄之力。

 Witnesses testifying in court help to ascertain the truth and occupy an important position in the civil online trial process. The newly issued "Rules of the People's Court Online Proceedings" have established principle provisions for remote testimony in civil online court trials, but in judicial practice, there are still some problems that affect the effectiveness of remote witness testimony.

    The first part is an overview of witness's remote testimony in civil online trial. Remote witness testimony refers to the use of modern audio-visual transmission technology to establish real-time interconnection with witnesses in the court trial, and combined with the unique testimony system to make witnesses fully participate in the court trial. The remote testimony of witnesses in online civil trial has many characteristics, such as technology dependence, cross time and space and difficulty in supervision. From domestic development, witness's long-distance testimony helps to protect the witness's right to personal safety and economic compensation, but it also challenges the principle of direct speech, judicial authority and the principle of open trial. From overseas experience, the remote testimony of witnesses must implement the protection of rights through the allocation of diversified rights. Its value concept should focus on procedural justice, and the scope of application of remote testimony should be expanded.

The second part is the practice form, legal rules and value concept of witness's remote testimony in civil online trial. At present, there are three main forms of witness remote testimony in civil online Court: Jilin Electronic court, Internet court and Zhejiang Mobile micro court. In this procedure, procedural justice should be regarded as the primary value, and its rank should be higher than procedural benefit and court order.

The third part is the dilemma and reason analysis of witness's remote testimony in China's civil online trial. Through the previous summary can be found: in the centralized trial mode, there are some difficulties, such as the low rate of witnesses appearing in court, the derogation from the principle of trial openness, and the unclear conversion rules between online testimony and offline testimony; In the asynchronous trial mode, there are many difficulties, such as ignoring the rule of isolation of witness testimony, violating the principle of word, and destroying the right of cross-examination of witness testimony. However, under these two modes, there are many difficulties, such as the court order being easily impacted, the lack of procedural protection for witnesses and the digital divide. There are relatively complex reasons behind each dilemma.

The fourth part is the suggestion of perfecting the dilemma of witness's remote testimony in China's civil online trial. Guided by general rules and the concept of procedural justice values, for the centralized trial mode, we should clarify the priority application rules of remote testimony, improve the rules for the delay and disclosure of court trial live broadcast under the remote testimony of witnesses and the rules for the conversion of online and offline testimony of witnesses; For the asynchronous trial mode, the evidence type of "Testimony" should be redefined and the procedure of concentrated argument should be set up according to the Stuttgart mode. From the common point of view of these two models, we should improve the rules of supervision and punishment, the allocation of witness's procedural choice and the construction of technology and supporting facilities. Through the above analysis and attempts, we aim to make a modest contribution to the relevant research.