The absence of institutional regulation poses a significant challenge to the orderliness of remote criminal trial. To avoid practical risks and address theoretical concerns, it is necessary to strengthen the institutional regulation of remote criminal trial in a timely manner. In terms of the initiation of proceeding, the existing normative documents have established a scheme of “plenary consent + court review”, which focuses more on the stability of the criminal justice process and aims to strengthen the control of the initiation of proceeding. However, it has the problems of “high threshold” and “flat rule”, and it is necessary to refine the rules on the initiation of proceeding by focusing on the issue of procedural option. Regarding the scope of application of remote proceeding in the narrow sense, the existing normative documents have generally adopted the approach of “specific enumeration + general authorization”. The main problem with this approach is that the institutional relationship between the inclusive clause and the restrictive clause is imbalanced. In order to solve this problem, it is suggested that the enumeration scope of the applicable object is appropriately broadened, the general authorization clause is revised and a felony exclusion clause is added. In terms of the procedural construction, the theory of digital justice requires the introduction of appropriate procedural norms and technical solutions to ensure effective procedural participation, fair technical confrontation and reasonable procedural remedies in remote criminal trial. |