I think the remedy here IS use immunity, however that's somewhat tricky. What it means is thewitness can incriminate himself, but that single act of self incrimination can never be used against him or her in a subsequent proceeding. The problem is that if the person is a suspect, or of the authorities have narrowed it down to two individuals, the admission may lead to an arrest anyway.
I've never had a a client offered use immunity to testify. I'd be very suspicious if confronted with it for the reason you mention. Use immunity never appeared equal in scope to the privilege it seeks to replace.
If a witness, refusing to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds, is offered use immunity, as opposed to transaction immunity, you can infer that the government is looking to prosecute him or her. The government may also already have an independent basis, on which to bring charges, and therefore a witness is compelled to incriminate himself.
I'm wondering if you have any specific experience with use immunity. If so, before the court or the prosecutor offers it, is there an in camera proceeding to define the basis and extent of the immunity. Where I practiced, transactional immunity was the only type of immunity offered.
