Alleged victims in rape and domestic abuse cases are not being told they can challenge moves to reveal their medical history in court - despite a landmark legal ruling earlier this year.

Just three applications for legal aid to argue against private records being used by defence lawyers have been made since a judgment was published in February giving complainers the right to the funding.

Campaigners are now calling for measures to be put in place to ensure women are aware of their rights to argue against the move, which support groups claim can increase the trauma of coming to court for victims and dissuade some from coming forward.

The ruling in February came after Scottish Ministers refused to grant legal aid to a woman in a domestic abuse case who did not want her records accessed.

She successfully appealed and the Scottish Government has now put measures in place allowing all complainers access to state funding, but nothing has been formally introduced to tell them about it.

Sandy Brindley, national coordinator for Rape Crisis Scotland, said she believes more applications for legal aid would have been made in the last six months if more people were aware of their right to it.

"It's all very well having a right to do something," she said. "But if you're not told you've got that right then it's meaningless."

Government figures released earlier this year show that over a three month period, between January 11, 2016, and April 11, 2016, a total of 57 applications were made to lead evidence relating to the character or medical history of an alleged victim.

Of these, a total of 48 were granted in full or in part and nine were refused.

The Crown, who prior to this ruling were the party able to object on behalf of the complainer, opposed six of the applications.

Marsha Scott, chief executive of Scottish Women's Aid, argued that there now needs to be a more systematic approach to informing complainers.

She said: "Services like us and Rape Crisis Scotland can tell women about it, but that's by no means efficient, especially given that a huge number may not be being supported by our services.

"There really needs to be clear accountability in the court system for letting women know of their rights.

"It's a public service and it's only a public service if the public know about it."

Currently, defence lawyers intimate to complainers their intention to seek access to records, but are under no obligation to tell them that they can argue against the move or get legal aid for a solicitor to do so.

Advocate Thomas Ross, president of the Scottish Criminal Bar Association, said: "We would certainly have to intimate the application, but where I think it's lacking is that there's no obligation to tell the complainer that they're entitled to make representations.

"This could easily be put in place via a rule from the Lord President saying that when you're intimating an application you need to let them know this too.

"If everybody knows they've got to do it then it makes things a lot simpler, if it's just left up in the air then it will lead to adjournments in cases."

Mr Ross argues that a standardised form informing complainers about their rights would be a sensible way forward.

The Crown Office can also seek records, but already request consent from complainers and advise them to seek legal advice if they object.

A spokesman for the Judicial Office for Scotland said guidance was issued following the court ruling "highlighting the importance of ensuring that any petition for the recovery of medical records is intimated to the subject of the records before it is considered" and the importance of complainers being given an opportunity to argue against the petition.

The Scottish Government said they welcomed the ruling and had put measures in place for complainers to receive legal aid on a non-means tested basis, but it was not for them to instruct the courts on how to inform complainers.