The structure and ethos of Bhutan's judiciary are based on 17th century codes laid down by the country's unifier, Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal, and the traditional practices of serfdom that existed in the country until 1907. Even though the codes were revised during 1953-57 by the National Assembly, they are not in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international covenants on civil and political rights, nor any of, other international juridical standards essential for the protection of citizens in a contemporary nation-state.
A court in Bhutan is called "Thrimkhang", literally, 'house of punishments'. As the travails of Tek Nath Rizal indicate, the court does indeed dispense only punishment, not justice. As there is no written constitution to guide the judiciary, there is minimal protection for those accused of political offenses.
The judiciary was supposedly separated from the executive in 1968. Functionally, this has not happened. The judges, appointed by and accountable only to the King, are themselves responsible for all aspects of the case, including investigations, filing of charges, prosecution, and judgement. There is no provision for jury trial or the right to a court-appointed defence attorney. Nor does the system provide for lawyers or solicitors. There are only legal representatives, known as jabtaz, who find it extremely difficult to defend the accused under the restrictive laws.
Bhutan Government's education setup discourages students from taking up studies in law, and as a result there is not a single Bhutanese today who is professionally qualified to practice it. The only law graduate in Bhutan, Subarna Lama, is now a Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Trade and Industry.