Article 25 of the American Convention.291 However, the Court considers that the analysis of the enforcement phase of judgments can also be addressed in accounting for the duration of proceedings, in order to determine its impact on prolonging the reasonable term of the proceedings.292 150. In fact, the European Court on Human Rights has repeatedly indicated that “enforcement proceedings must be regarded as the second stage of the proceedings.” 293 Similarly, in the case of Silva e Pontes Vs. Portugal, the Court established that the guarantees established in Article 6 of the European Convention apply both to the first stage of the proceedings as well as to the second. 294 In addition, in the case of Robins Vs. United Kingdom said Court concluded that all stages of the proceedings for the determination of civil rights and obligations, “not excluding stages subsequent to judgment on the merits,” shall be resolved within a reasonable time.295 151. Accordingly, this Court considers that the main purpose for which the alleged victim filed a civil suit was to obtain compensation for damages; therefore, for the purposes of analyzing the reasonable term, said proceedings cannot be considered completed until that purpose is materialized.296 Similarly, the Court considers that the term for the enforcement 291 Cf. inter alia, Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru, para. 138, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 77. 292 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, para. 220. 293 Cf. ECHR Case of Di Pede v. Italy, (No. 15797/89) Judgment of August 29, 1996, para. 24; Case of Silva e Pontes v. Portugal, (No. 14940/89) Judgment of 23 March 1994, para. 33; Case of Zappia v. Italy, (No. 24295/94)Judgment of 29 August 1996, para. 20. The European Court analyzed the reasonable term for proceedings originating from breach of a contract for the sale of an apartment under construction. The proceedings ended in a final and firm judgment, and was followed by the procedure for enforcement of this judicial decision; Case of Cochiarella v. Italy, (No. 64886/01), G.C. Judgment of 29 March 2006, para. 88. The European Court issued rulings in ten cases where the plaintiffs were Italian citizens requesting reparation in Italian courts within the framework of the "Pinto Act" (Law Nº. 89 of March 24, 2001) for the losses incurred due to excessive delays in the proceedings to which they were parties in the national courts. 294 Cf. ECHR Case of Silva e Pontes v. Portugal, para. 36. The European Court analyzed the reasonable term for proceedings for damages originating from a traffic accident. On this occasion the proceeding ended with a Judgment that ordered the payment of compensation to the plaintiffs, and was followed by an enforcement phase to achieve effective payment of the award. (“There can be no doubt that Article 6 (art. 6) applies to the first stage of the proceedings and, having regard to its reasoning in relation to the preliminary objection, the Court is of the view that the same must be true of the second stage”). 295 Cf. ECHR Case Robins v. United Kingdom, (No. 22410/93), Judgment of September 27, 1997, paras. 28 and 29. The European Court analyzed the reasonable term of proceedings arising from a dispute between neighbors, which although it ended in a final and firm judgment, required a subsequent process to establish the costs of the proceedings. (“The Court recalls that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention requires that all stages of legal proceedings for the “determination of ... civil rights and obligations”, not excluding stages subsequent to judgment on the merits, be resolved within a reasonable time”) (“the costs proceedings, even though separately decided, must be seen as a continuation of the substantive litigation and accordingly as part of a “determination of ... civil rights and obligations”). 296 Cf. mutatis mutandis, ECHR Case of Di Pede v. Italy, para. 31. The European Court ruled on this point in the context of the analysis of reasonable term of a judicial process that ended in a judge’s order to demolish works that caused damages to the neighbors. The enforcement of this order was partially executed; hence, the Court deemed that the proceedings had not been finalized. (“Lastly, the Government's contention that the case has been discontinued cannot be accepted; it is hard to understand how the case could have been discontinued while part of the works had still not been carried out”). 50