That would not be a breach of the legislation.
Also, we might notify local law enforcement of the person's old name when we relocate them, so that they know who they have in their area.
In the specific case, I'm not entirely familiar with the case, but with the assumption that the person commits a crime and the relatives of the victim wish to know who that person was, under our statute we have a victims compensation requirement—that is, we must offer to the family of any victim who is killed up to $25,000, I think, to cover medical expenses or funeral expenses, and so on. They certainly would have a right to know who that person really was who had killed their relative.
The one complicated area is that if disclosing that information would compromise an ongoing investigation, we might delay it for a bit. But that would happen so rarely. I can't recall it happening, as a matter of fact; it's just a potential.
By disclosing the name to the family, you give them some peace. The cost to the United States government to do that simply means relocating again the family of the witness who had committed the murder, so that the family of the victim has the peace of closure and the family of the witness has the safety of being relocated again, and the loss comes in a money sense to the United States government.