@ Olasek
Two separate reasons, at least.
First, yes, we know ICAO standards are not governmental and are not enforceable in the way that a sovereign nation's (or State's ) actual laws would be enforceable. But the investigatory process set forth in Annex 13 is quite likely to be held relevant in the context of other ICAO procedures. Specifically, at some point this search effort will likely lead to examination of whether Annex 12 terms, and bilateral as well as multilateral agreements on SAR, need to be improved. In that examination I can see relevance in the extent to which the Malaysian government followed An. 13.
Second, again knowing An. 13 has not the force and effect of sovereign law, as and when the US Congress again takes up legislation changing and expanding the requirements for flight recorders (previously introduced as the SAFE Act), I can see the oft-times inexpert, or even misguided, Congressional process locking onto tangential factors. Knowing whether the Malaysian government followed An.13 timelines would be only a background fact, and not directly relevant to the hardware, SAR, and type certification questions presented by such a legislative proposal. Yet knowing those background facts nevertheless would be very relevant because such facts would help keep a side-issue from distracting consideration of the central facts. It's an open-and-shut case of "what you don't know can hurt you" when meritorious legislation is run aground on tangentially related points.
Perhaps you would state some of the prior instances to which you have referred, if this is requested very politely, please?