So here’s a philisophical issue for you.
A nation is experiencing a terrorism campaign. Hundreds, thousands, die. The government cannot stop it, no matter what extreme measures it takes. It uses expanded police, no effect. It then uses army curfews, no effect. It then send military special forces to commit targeted extrajudicial executions of terrorist leaders, but there is no effect, new leaders pop up. It then sets up shadow terrorist organization to commit terrorist actions against the other terrorists and their families and children, but no effect.
Finally the terrorists are worn out and are willing to negotiate, and a compromise is achieved. The terrorists disarm, their leaders join the political mainstream. Leaders in jail are given amnesties for the crimes they were convicted for. The terrorists leaders then take part in the democratic process, they become advocates for peace, and the country experiences two decades of peace.
Then, new evidence emerges which ties the leader of the group to a murder committed 25 years previously as part of the old terrorist campaign. Police arrest him and start a new investigation. His former colleagues warn that unless he is released, the old campaign that cost so many lives could resume.
In this case, what is the right thing to do? Is justice for one death worth pursuing at the cost of conflict and hundreds or thousands of more deaths? Or should past crimes be forgiven in pursuit of national reconciliation?