A very good point.
How ever, It would be humanly impossible to let a defaulter off the hook when you knew if some wrong has been done.
The ICAO annex assumes that all procedures and no "Operational" shortcuts have been followed and hence the view to find what went wrong.
The Judiciary just needs to find out if the neglect was intentional or fuelled by greed (Company practices to minimize losses/ expenses etc).
99% of accidents can be prevented with the current system of rules and regulations being followed but this is often expensive and , for the management "Inconvenient" and so the spirit of the law is abandoned for the letter.
The ICAO wants to ppug the remaining 1% hole and the judiciary wants the law to be followed in spirit as well as letter.
As far as airline management is often concerned, it is almost always a risk vs cost analysis and mostly... cost rules.
Consider this example: You caught a thief stealing from the bank and he gave you his modus operandi, while one would take action to prevent recurrence, the thief will be punished for his offence.
Hence the Judge is often more interested in the intent of the action, which may make an outcome different i.e culpable homicide amounting to murder or not amounting to murder or simply rash and negligent act resulting in death.etc...
BTW, I do feel that there should be a total inquiry by aviation authority which cannot and must not be used for criminalising ac accidents.