Swept wing aircraft, when they stall, become uncontrolable. When the wing drops, that wing tip then stalls. Because the wingtip is well aft of the centre of lift, the nose continues to rise while the wingtip continues to fall a little. There is no recovery possible - even with small rudder input to stop the wing dropping because the huge amount of lift inboard ( and forward of the c of g), at the now increasing high angle of attack keeps the angle of attack increasing to an uncontrolable pitch. Some military aircraft have a huge fully movable tailplane and massive excess(combat) power to save the day in such an encounter, but certainly not in a bog standard transport design. Civil aircraft have stick shakers, pushers, nudgers and so on to help prevent getting anywhere near the full stall, from which there will be no recovery. Rudder is not part of the procedure here and never has been. In theory, a little bit of rudder will help to stop the dropping, but the secondary effects are enormous and difficult to counter accurately. Besides, by the time the desired effect is produced the angle of attack of the main wing is beyond correcting.
Rudder is not part of the procedure for controlling an aircraft upset when just about to stall either. Surely you fly yourself out of the problem using any height available. If there is insuficient height available then a crash is inevitable.
In the AA accident, the speed and g involved shows the aircraft well above the stall. If they were not stalling, then surely they should use the available height to fly out of the problem.? If they (and not a rogue autopilot or control surface) did indeed apply those control inputs, it seems they might have been in too much of a hurry to get the aircraft back on an even keel, and were not prepared to use their height for recovery.
Regarding the Interflug A310 in Russia. On my 6 week Airbus course at Toulouse, this incident was a central part of our one day flight safety seminar. They spent 2 hours covering the incident with video reconstruction from the digital FDR ( possible because the aircraft subsequently landed safely). There was no attempt to cover up Airbus deficiencies. The crews problems were not aggravated by use of rudder. The crew could, however, have prevented the subsequent aerobatics during recovery by using the controls to fly out of the problem. No mention or suggestion on this course that the crew should have, or should not have used rudder. I'm surprised that the TV documentary used this serious incident in their programme - it was irrelevent.