There seems to be missing something in the jurystical system, providing for rights that are bigger when a previous narrower obligation was offended.
As an alternative granting a personal pardon; willful and coincidental as it is; seems to stem from the middle ages.
The usual enfringement a court finds itself in, is that the whistleblower took part in crime/ and than spoke up to be granted pardon for his acknowledgement, as if he planned that so, for crime without retribution.
It reminds me of Dreyfuss, who could not be found unguilty, while he was, because the interests of a bigger society are always larger than those of a single person and therefore must be called wrong by definition.
Something society still has not found a way to allow itself thinking around that. It cannot make up its mind, if the offended interests where perhaps bigger than the mitigating new found.